One of the more obvious problems with the activity being carried out by unions that is the topic of this thread? Is that in the real world in 2014, this kind of disclosure is no longer acceptable. And publishing such information is a liability which leaves responsible entities vulnerable to prosecution due to intimidation and harassment issues that spring up from the publication of private information. Responsible companies no longer publish lists and guides to their employes telephone numbers and addresses precisely because of the real world real and what has happened to people as a result of such "list". In 2014 organizations are held financially liable and responsible for actions that have occurred as the result of such published list. For reasons varying from sexual harassment, outward. Whereas ten years ago, one could walk up to a schedule board at, oh say a restaurant? There would be the list of employees, and so as to make shift trades and communication amongst staff easy, there would be the phone numbers of all the staff. Namely all the pretty young servers. This does not occur anymore because no responsibly operated restaurant will be caught dead doing that in 2014, precisely because of the fact that there are always bad actors that can and will do "bad things" with this kind of personal information. So the practice is no longer acceptable and is considered a "no brainer" (as in don't do it) in 2014. But one that if a business ignores, might just lead to an expensive lawsuit.
Yet we are to accept the truly childish insistence of people on the internet that unions should get a pass, just the rest of America has to operate that way? Of course not, that would be idiotic. As always happens when the subject of unions comes up on internet boards, die hard union defenders will arrive to collectively offer the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh". To pretty much any fact or statement that is critical of the union in question. This thread has been very illustrative o in that way. One lamentable thing about some "unions" is that like many institutions in America in 2014? What started as a necessary and desirable reform protection has morphed into yet more institutions that are basically profiting at the expense of and taking advantage of the working class.
Last edited by Great King Rat; 10-13-14 at 01:48 PM.
those non-dues paying bargaining unit members; have they made a conscience decision to be a free rider and enjoy the benefits of union representation without incurring the costs to maintain those union provided benefits? are they employees who have never been approached to sign up? are they co-workers who do not understand what the union has negotiated for the bargaining unit, and would pay their way if they only knew what had been done on their behalf and the expenses associated with such representation? are they co-workers who are cozy with management and recognize that it is their relationship with management rather than their union affiliation that will likely advance their career? are they co-workers the bargaining unit members would find trustworthy to share information with, or should important information be withheld from them - possibly because they are management moles? are those on that list also those who receive preferential treatment from management? are they the ones who have been promoted instead of union members?
by knowing who is and is not dues paying the union membership can help identify to the union any appearance of disparate treatment, which favorable/unfavorable treatment based on union participation is an unfair labor violation
When did you stop being for the workers?
I'm not persuaded by arguments based upon obtuse postures that the publication of the information in question can't and won't be used as information like that invariably and historically has been used. Mainly because in my opinion that is an idiotic stance. The aforementioned "no brainer" term comes to mind. I like how you introduce the concept that something "heinous" has occurred and then demand that others illustrate that to you. Again, you expect that to be taken seriously?