• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to Weigh Dispute Over Union Fees

Seriously? That's even worse than I thought.

What happens if they're on the road and a bird hits a mirror and knocks it out of whack? Do they pull over and wait for a union approved maintenance guy to come out and adjust it back? (I'm being facetious, but it wouldn't knock me over if you said 'yes'.)

I've never been called out to adjust a mirror other than at the terminal... but there are other simple things i've been called out for on the road... most of which the driver couldn't handle even if he wanted to ( they lacked tools and parts)
drivers could add oil or adjust mirrors, but only during their pre-trip or post trip inspections.. if it was the middle of their trip or shift, it fell on me to get it done.

I loved going out on the road.... I'm on the clock when my ass hits the truck seat, and i'm paid until i get home... and they paid mileage.... time and half after hours ( after 5 pm), double time on sundays.. triple on holidays.
the kicker is.. i didn't negotiate those terms... they were dictated and nonnegotiable


it gets worse, much worse, though... but as I said, i made a ton of money from such idiocy.... it was a running joke between me , the drivers, and management.
hell, when i walked in to get the work, the GM told me " you'll be a rich man if you can keep up with all the small stuff.... you'll be out of a job if you can't"
I didn't realize until much later that was something he could have never told any of his own employees.
 
I am simply waiting for you to explain what you wrote and not simply pretend you are the smartest boy in class who can throw vitriolic crap around instead of facts and reason.

Lets start with your charge that I am right wing. Lets see the facts and your explanation for that accusation.

stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
 
it's not "bs" .. it's common... especially in the trucking industry (Teamsters dominated)
oh, it's BS alright as you have documented for me

...jobs are strictly defined and workers are not allowed to go beyond those definitions under the guise of stealing work from another worker.
what you are telling us is that management agreed to a contract in which its employees were limited in the functions they could fulfill
management agreed to that
yet you want to pretend labor is the problem

if this guy was hired as a fueler, there's nothing else he would be allowed to do....
if the terminal had a janitor, he wouldn't even be allowed to push a broom to fill his time when he wasn't fueling.
so, you wanted the janitor to do two jobs: custodial and re-fueling
i imagine you would expect an airline pilot to both fly the plane and hand out snacks to the passengers

I made a ton of money off of such "bs" rules... a ton.
and yet you object to unions
how odd to object to what is admittedly very beneficial for you

my night were busy making service call to the terminals to do things the drivers weren't allowed to do.. such as adjusting their mirrors, checking/adding oil to their trucks.. replacing a mudflap or a marker light bulb.
these maintenance items that management agreed under contract that drivers were not obligated to perform
and you are blaming the union for acting in the best interests of its employees?
foolish

if I could string together 2 or 3 simple jobs, I could make close to a grand a night.
I absolutely loved hearing that phone ring at night.:lol:
that personal windfall, and yet you object to union rights. how odd

Conway ( non-union) is another story... there were no simple night calls for me there... they actually had their drivers do the simple things.
being a non-union company, they also had much better equipment.. such as trucks with electric mirrors :lol:
so, management of the unionized company, recognizing it had a problem with aligning its mirrors, opted NOT to purchase electric mirrors but instead hire another classification of worker to perform that task manually

notice how in every instance the stupidity you have identified has been management's?!
 
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....

Stop trying to fake it like you explained your accusation that I was guilty of taking right wing positions and pushing right wing politics then. You are obviously impotent to document or explain these false charges.

And continuing to insult me only shines and even greater spotlight on your own inability to offer this evidence you have been unable to present so far.
 
oh, it's BS alright as you have documented for me
no, it's not BS.. you';re a union sychophants, you should know better than to call it BS.


what you are telling us is that management agreed to a contract in which its employees were limited in the functions they could fulfill
management agreed to that
yet you want to pretend labor is the problem
and here you are inferring management has the same negotiating position as unions
" oh, we demanded something backed by the threat of a strike.. but it's not our fault we won those terms ..we had nothing to do with it.".. sell stupid so someone who is buying.


so, you wanted the janitor to do two jobs: custodial and re-fueling
i imagine you would expect an airline pilot to both fly the plane and hand out snacks to the passengers
whoa whoa whoa.. i thought you just called it "bs"?..and now you're making anrgument for what you previously called BS?.. image my surprise.:roll:



and yet you object to unions
how odd to object to what is admittedly very beneficial for you
I object to public sector unions... not private sector unions.
I have issues with certain specific items, polcies, and behaviors.. but overall, i do not object to private sector unions.


these maintenance items that management agreed under contract that drivers were not obligated to perform
and you are blaming the union for acting in the best interests of its employees?
foolish
depends on how you define "best interest"...
ya see, saving money and time by having drivers adjust their own mirrors frees up funds for such things as .. new trucks, better terminals.. or even more land to build a ship to hire mechanics.
but , meh, i guess better equipment or more jobs isn't in the "best interest" of the employees.:roll:


that personal windfall, and yet you object to union rights. how odd
i've told you what my position on union... you can adjust your comments accordingly now.


so, management of the unionized company, recognizing it had a problem with aligning its mirrors, opted NOT to purchase electric mirrors but instead hire another classification of worker to perform that task manually

notice how in every instance the stupidity you have identified has been management's?!
..you couldn't sound more clueless if you tried. .. "mirror adjuster" is not a classification of worker.:lol:
it's a simple task inherent to driving a truck, as every truck driver knows... the point is that the unions disallow doing this simple task when it's not part of a pre or post trip inspection....

but i get it.. unions hold no responsibly for anything.. it's always management's fault for everything...I've heard that same tune played many times before..
 
Stop trying to fake it like you explained your accusation that I was guilty of taking right wing positions and pushing right wing politics then. You are obviously impotent to document or explain these false charges.

And continuing to insult me only shines and even greater spotlight on your own inability to offer this evidence you have been unable to present so far.

stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
 
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....

What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?

You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.

It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.

Thrilla
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..
post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.
 
Last edited:
What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?

You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.

It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.


post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.

stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
 
The manager does not have complete control over who is hired - union employees with the highest seniority get the better positions. If the removed worker is replaced, it's by the person next in line who has the same qualifications and highest seniority - who may just be worse then the person just removed, and the cycle starts all over again. That's the cat and mouse game that's been happening for decades now.
my experience was in the public/federal sector. there we had managers who refused to budge when we attempted to restrict hires to internal candidates. and they were wise to do so, because there could be external candidates who were better qualified. so, i have not seen the scenario you presented; however, since my union experience was limited to the public sector, i cannot offer a rebuttal to your own experience

I'm not saying that all union employees are bad by any stretch but some do the bare minimum and some do less than that with the only REAL discipline being a note in their employee file and being moved to a new position, sometimes under the SAME manager. I've seen both healthy management - union locations and poisonous ones. Even in the healthy one's grievances are fairly common.
i have represented under-performing employees in many instances. and still won. because the damn manager failed to document the employee's shortcomings. any union rep would have prevailed. the employee won NOT because management did not have sound reason to discipline them but because they failed to make a case. that requires effort. and in too many instances, i have seen managers ignore their obligations to document their case
in the best situation i encountered in my career, the senior manager and i had a healthy, respectful, communicative and open relationship. we solved problems. we negotiated agreements found nowhere else, such as the manner in which all employees - who received a satisfactory rating or better - received a substantial year-end bonus. those who received higher ratings got even more. those who were superlative received the most. and those performance goals were set at the beginning of the year and were both achievable and documentable. as a result of these incentives, the office performed massively better than all 66 others in the nation
the result? HQ forbade us from distributing bonus money that way again and instead imposed a procedure that gave the most money to the highest ranking. the manager was sent away to become the turn-around specialist for the other problem offices. HQ replaced him with a political hire from the coal industry who knew nothing about what we did. and the office soon returned to being an average performer

i once formed a new, competing union. have gone to court and testified against my own union. the fellow who was my mentor initiated a strike against my union and the damned union president, who is hopefully now frying in hell. except for the uppermost levels, union officials are rank and file employees. if the employees - who by law must be democratically elected to their positions - are crooks and/or incompetent, then the union will suffer. just like the weak politicians we elect cause our nation to suffer the consequences of their presence. i mention this to demonstrate that i recognize that misdirected unions are prone to cause problems. but when the employees are actively engaged in their union and management is enlightened enough to work with rather than fight the union, a synergy ignites, resulting in beneficial outcomes for all
 
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....

Brain stuck in rewind? Repeating the same refuted nonsense seems your only line of an extremely weak defense. You are now officially a dog chasing its own tail going round and round and round but getting nowhere. But hey, why change the only tactic that you know at this point?

What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?

You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.

It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.

from Thrilla
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..

post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.

So now you are attempting to apply to me the "comprehension" schtick ....when you yourself dismissed it as applied to you.

This is extremely telling.
 
Last edited:
my experience was in the public/federal sector. there we had managers who refused to budge when we attempted to restrict hires to internal candidates. and they were wise to do so, because there could be external candidates who were better qualified. so, i have not seen the scenario you presented; however, since my union experience was limited to the public sector, i cannot offer a rebuttal to your own experience
My experience has only been in the private sector and not in many unions but one specific one - CWA and IBEW of NJ. It certainly depends on which union, what sector and what the contracts both local and national (in my case national) specified.


i have represented under-performing employees in many instances. and still won. because the damn manager failed to document the employee's shortcomings. any union rep would have prevailed. the employee won NOT because management did not have sound reason to discipline them but because they failed to make a case. that requires effort. and in too many instances, i have seen managers ignore their obligations to document their case
in the best situation i encountered in my career, the senior manager and i had a healthy, respectful, communicative and open relationship. we solved problems. we negotiated agreements found nowhere else, such as the manner in which all employees - who received a satisfactory rating or better - received a substantial year-end bonus. those who received higher ratings got even more. those who were superlative received the most. and those performance goals were set at the beginning of the year and were both achievable and documentable. as a result of these incentives, the office performed massively better than all 66 others in the nation
the result? HQ forbade us from distributing bonus money that way again and instead imposed a procedure that gave the most money to the highest ranking. the manager was sent away to become the turn-around specialist for the other problem offices. HQ replaced him with a political hire from the coal industry who knew nothing about what we did. and the office soon returned to being an average performer
Granted, I have only had a manager be unprepared a few times and even then they were coached by upper managed on the grievance procedures as well as the appeal processes. Sometimes those nasty cases went to an agreed upon 3rd party arbitrator but for the most part, the documentation was provided well in advance to the union rep - sometimes the grievance was dropped most times it wasn't. However in all cases I can say that there was only 1 outright dismissal that I was involved in and that was because we had a quality control recording (union approved through contract) of a guy making a drug deal while talking on the phone to a supposed "customer". The person who replaced him was a definite improvement.
 
Brain stuck in rewind? Repeating the same refuted nonsense seems your only line of an extremely weak defense. You are now officially a dog chasing its own tail going round and round and round but getting nowhere. But hey, why change the only tactic that you know at this point?

What is it exactly that I am failing to comprehend regarding your unfounded accusations against me ?

You have not been able to document this charge and still are unable to do so resorting only to insults and repetition of those same insults.

It is obvious you let your mouth get a bad case of diarrhea and now are unable to clean yourself up without losing face.



post 92 in this very thread in which he accused me on being inconsistent on freeloaders then getting his logic caught in his own trap because of my answer.

So now you are attempting to apply to me the "comprehension" schtick ....when you yourself dismissed it as applied to you.

This is extremely telling.

stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....
 
if the unions did not help the employees, then why do many employers expend so much time and money trying to keep the unions out?

The same reason they try and keep gophers out of their golf courses.
 
stop try to make your comprehension skills my problem....

You seem to have reverted to broken English... perhaps it is not your first language?
 
you seem to have nothing of substance to say.... as usual.

Quite opposite really. You would think that one who pretends to give wise guy advice about the so called comprehension skills of another would - at a very minimum - be able to express that thought in basic English that a fourth grader can handle rather easily. Otherwise it holds that individual up to rather deserved ridicule. And compounding that mistake by you repeating it again and again - well that indeed is something of substance.

It appears that you were not able to comprehend what you yourself wrote in your own rather poor use of the language - over and over again.
 
Last edited:
Henrin is right, you're making no sense. Pay comes from revenue/profits. And management gets more control because management is taking more risk.

Not to mention you seem to think that management does no work whatsoever. Who do you think coordinates everything and makes sure it functions properly? That stuff doesn't just happen in a vacuum. No, it takes qualified and competent people who work just as hard, albeit not as physical, as everyone else.

Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
 
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.

"the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous." What are your job qualifications to judge ridiculousness? Have you, or will you ever, sign the front of a paycheck? As for competition, why should I keep you employed when I could find someone more qualified?
 
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.
You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.

Can you name a single society in history where this has been done, and done successfully?
 
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.

And yet, after so much history of man in the workplace, the concept you champion has failed over and over and over. Perhaps that suggests something?
 
"the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous." What are your job qualifications to judge ridiculousness? Have you, or will you ever, sign the front of a paycheck? As for competition, why should I keep you employed when I could find someone more qualified?

I'm not comparing two workers, rather two job positions.

You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.

Can you name a single society in history where this has been done, and done successfully?

Socialist Yugoslavia implemented worker self-management under Josip Broz Tito and saw a decline in unemployment, rise in education levels, and living standards and a life expectancy comparable to that of Western capitalist countries. The fall of Yugoslavia was a result of the ethnic conflict that emerged after Tito's death, and self-management ended during the country's collapse as a result of the ethnic conflict. Revolutionary Catalonia also implemented worker's self-management before being invaded in the Spanish Civil War. In the United States, in response to the Great Depression, over half of American farmers became members of worker cooperatives. Many cooperatives exist in the United States to this day. The same phenomenon of worker self-management has been implemented in several factories in Greece in response to the Greek financial crisis. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque Country of Spain is a prominent example of a cooperative successful in modern times. Many businesses in Argentina are self-managed as a result of the Argentine financial crisis of 2001. So yes, worker self-management has been implemented successfully multiple times across the globe.


And yet, after so much history of man in the workplace, the concept you champion has failed over and over and over. Perhaps that suggests something?

See my response to radcen. I'm not sure you understand the concept of self-management and the fact that implementation of it around the globe has been successful or if you're just claiming that all forms of socialism are a failure because muh Cold War.
 
See my response to radcen. I'm not sure you understand the concept of self-management and the fact that implementation of it around the globe has been successful or if you're just claiming that all forms of socialism are a failure because muh Cold War.

I am familiar with concepts involving self management. And true examples are limited at best. Further, having leadership share decision making power is not some new idea, nor should it be considered a radical new business model. What I see is an attempt to co-opt a common business practice into something that it isn't.
 
You're living in a naive paper theory fantasy land.

Can you name a single society in history where this has been done, and done successfully?

Management isn't a more important job, requiring more experience and more valuable skills....

Donchaknow?
 
I'm not comparing two workers, rather two job positions.

I understood you to mean two job positions. You see no difference in the salary potential of two different jobs is even more silly.

You conveniently ignored the rest. I take it that you never have signed the front of a paycheck.
 
Management is not a job worthy of more pay than other jobs. There are always going to be discrepancies in wages due to the nature of capitalism, but the idea that given two jobs of equal working time, one is deserving of higher wages is frankly ridiculous. When talking about wages, we are talking about people's livelihoods. That's not something that should be subjected to competition.

Worker self-management is an existing concept. Ending the major discrepancies between in benefits between employer and employee is not going to result in mass chaos because it doesn't mean no one manages. The job of management is democratized.

Sooner or later "worker self-management" leads to some animals being more equal than others.
 
Back
Top Bottom