Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 120

Thread: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

  1. #51
    Educator shintao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    10-19-13 @ 11:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    994

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    there should be a level playing field to prevent the employee from being exploited
    before unionism was pervasive, employees were obliged to do whatever the employer required - or leave
    on its face, that seems reasonable, but it's actually exploitative (or has the potential to be)
    you likely won't have to look around too far today to find someone who spent their career working for some company, only to be terminated (at will, since they were not working under union contract terms). the employer terminates them to hire a younger, cheaper employee ... and to avoid having to pay the retirement benefits to the employee who had spent his career working for the company but was just before becoming vested in that retirement plan
    by this time, the terminated older employee likely has a difficult time getting a similar job elsewhere and may not have enough working years remaining to qualify for a retirement package
    this is something the younger workers who are opposed to unionization should contemplate


    they have invested their years of service. that is something they cannot recover. they have denied themselves the ability to work elsewhere to accumulate a better salary and benefits


    the workplace is what is found to be a union activity, if the election has determined that was the decision of the majority of the rank and file. all non management employees are then covered by the union contract, whether the employee pays union dues or not. the union must represent the non dues paying bargaining unit members just as it represents the interests of the dues paying union members. the only thing the employee gets by paying dues that they do not otherwise enjoy at a bargaining unit location, is the ability to vote in the union elections (and to be an officer of the union). please note that option to pay union dues or not exists only in the right-to-work states

    as was noted above, it is the workplace that was elected to be represented by the union. employees who are added or who replace exiting workers are automatically union represented employees (bargaining unit members)
    in the federal sector where i gained my experience, a contractor's employees may have voted to become unionized. if at the end of that contractor's contract period, if another contractor wins the follow on contract, that new contractor inherits a unionized workplace
    the contractor and all employees may be different than what was there previously, but the work site remains a unionized bargaining unit

    just as elections can be conducted to bring a union in to represent a work place, an election can be held (again with a 30% showing of employees) to de-certify a union. in that situation 50% of the employees plus one will be enough to end the union representation at the work site



    the employer does not have to agree to anything. it must freely engage/participate in negotiations. there will often be an impasse of the parties. when agreement is not reached the federal impasses panel comes in to divide the baby. whichever party's position was most reasonable at the time of the impasse, as determined by the impasse panel, becomes the contract terms. so, if the union over reached, the employer's position would be found most legitimate and thus directed to be adopted. if the employer was the less reasonable party, the impasse panel would direct that the terms proposed by the union at the time of impasse would then be binding on the parties
    that aspect is little understood. if you seek too much and have to go to impasse, you will likely be the losing party
    As a past union member during my working career, in exchange for dues, my living wage and benefits were negotiated for me on a regional basis, I did not have to waste time looking for employment because I had a dispatcher with world-wide connections, I had ongoing health care, strike benefits, life insurance, disability pension & retirement pension, lawyers, co-op banking, and a host of discounted services and products. A private worker would be lucky to get any of those perks. I was also insured the guy working next to me had been trained in an apprenticeship to work accurately, safely, and professionally, and I had worker rights enforced on our job sites.

  2. #52
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by shintao View Post
    As a past union member during my working career, in exchange for dues, my living wage and benefits were negotiated for me on a regional basis, I did not have to waste time looking for employment because I had a dispatcher with world-wide connections, I had ongoing health care, strike benefits, life insurance, disability pension & retirement pension, lawyers, co-op banking, and a host of discounted services and products. A private worker would be lucky to get any of those perks. I was also insured the guy working next to me had been trained in an apprenticeship to work accurately, safely, and professionally, and I had worker rights enforced on our job sites.
    And while that sounds all nice, a lot of businesses can not afford to provide all those things.
    Businesses do not exist to give you stuff, that you are not worth paying.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #53
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,146

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    But there is no law requiring an employer to provide an retirement and if someone is willing to work for cheaper, why shouldn't he/she be replaced?
    but the employer can give the appearance of a retirement plan to entice the desirable employees. and then using the classic carrot and stick, takes away the retirement carrot and gives the aged employee the stick - no job with no retirement benefits and a then lessened opportunity to go forward and earn them elsewhere

    Widespread exploitative businesses before unionization is a myth perpetuated by ****ty history teachers.
    if only you were correct
    i am an old fart. but remember as a boy of nine going to my grandmother's friend's home. it was a tiny place right beside the mill she had worked in all her life
    she showed me the box she used when she was a girl of six working in that textile mill. the box was needed so that she would be tall enough to reach the machines. she pushed the box from one machine to the next. smart woman, but uneducated. tough to go to school while also working a 10 hour shift six days per week at the mill - when you are six years old
    she told me of the working conditions she had to endure. that alone tells me the history teachers have it right. your attempt to re-write history is misguided

    That's not an investment, they got paid for working the whole time.
    they did get paid for the time worked. they did not get paid for the retirement benefits they had earned because they were terminated before becoming vested in those benefits

    An investment is putting up money and time in exchange for a future payout, these employees have already been paid.
    then we agree. the money the employer was (supposedly) salting away in a retirement fund for the employee to enjoy upon retirement was their financial investment. obviously they spent significant time accruing those expected retirement benefits. thus, the employee was fully invested monetarily and with time ... but according to the employer - who would prefer to pocket the sinking fund holding the employee's retirement money - the employee was not vested. terminated instead, forfeiting any right to retirement, because the employer exercised his right to terminate at will

    But why should they be?
    Why should new workers automatically be grandfathered?
    because the workplace remains defined. the employees tend to be fungible. thus the work place defines the site of union representation

    New employees did not elect to be represented as such.
    no, they didn't. but they knew - or had the opportunity to know - before coming on board that they are about to become a represented employee of a bargaining unit

    The employer should be completely able to walk away if the demands are to much.
    all but the enlightened owners/employers would always insist that the union demands were too great and cite that as their reason not to agree to union demands
    you seem to forget that the employer as does the union, signs a labor-management contract defining the processes of the workplace regarding conditions of employment. that is not a unilaterally crafted agreement

    Currently they can't do that when the employee can, why don't we make that level?
    no, the union does not get to walk away, either. that would constitute an unfair labor practice of the union. good faith bargaining is required. and if they cannot reach agreement, then the impasse panel can step in and split the baby
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian
    Just...

    Here's a link to the statutes you mentioned (and I used above).
    United States Code: Title 5,CHAPTER 71—LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Please drill down and post exactly which ones you believe Boeing broke.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian View Post
    Geez... I even gave you a link to the exact statutes you mentioned. You could at least have the courtesy to check it out and post for us the exact statute Boeing broke.
    Justabubba.. you know this post was a direct question to you, right? Since you brought it up, I thought it only fair that you show us which statue Boeing broke that make this, in your own words, 'union busting'.

    You'de expect nothing less of me or any other poster.

  5. #55
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,100

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Maybe Title 5 is related to government employees and has no bearing here ?
    Last edited by Utility Man; 04-22-11 at 05:32 PM.

  6. #56
    Sidewalk Inspector
    Utility Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,100

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    More info on the subject, maybe look here:http://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/fi...nd_not_hrg.pdf

    In general, labor issues would be handled by NLRB NLRB |.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama, the agency filed a complaint Wednesday seeking to force Boeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in Washington State instead of moving the work to a nonunion plant in South Carolina.
    Welcome Boeing!!

    Not only do companies want to move to the South, so do many Americans -- business friendly, lower housing costs, lower taxes, warmer climate... it's no wonder that people are moving in droves from places like New York, DC, Michigan, NJ, Illinois and Massachusetts to come to places like NC, SC, Florida and Georgia.

  8. #58
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by shintao View Post
    So, more businesses do not want to be unionized. Why do you think that is?
    Probably because unions cost more money than they make for a company.

  9. #59
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by shintao View Post
    Unions are people, so it is the same topic. Where has a business paid more for less using union help? Or faced strikes instead of walk outs? And what disadvantaged workers are your refering to? Union workers or nonunion workers?
    Hmm lets see....
    American Airlines
    CT Highway Dept.
    SuperValu
    NY/NJ Port Authority
    Moran Term
    the list can go on and on

    I know because when I go to these places I do all the work myself, with the exception of CT Highway Dept. They just shut down lanes in the interstate and use five dump trucks with five drivers to have one dude on a riding lawn mower to mow grass in November.

  10. #60
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,146

    Re: Labor Board Tells Boeing New Factory Breaks Law

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Probably because unions cost more money than they make for a company.
    that may be a significant issue
    what i found was that the employer most objected to the appearance of co-management. they wanted to make decisions unilaterally. and that is a much easier practice for them
    of course that was in the public sector where profit making was not a consideration
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •