• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

Union Posts Names of Non-Members, Urges Shunning

TheDemSocialist said:
I just did.

"In a recent newsletter, the local urges co-workers not to share “tools, knowledge or support” with individuals who chose not to pay union dues."


:yawn: What, get called a "scab"?
Click to expand...

a - there are potential safety issues with doing so.
b - there are potential issues with the smooth running of the plant with doing so.

If I was GM management I'd be all over the union's ass about this infantile idiocy.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Nothing wrong with some transparency..... Now is there?
Click to expand...

Union intimidation in the work place is illegal. job harassment and creating a hostile work environment violate labor laws as well.
if I was the company I would put the union and any union employee's on notice. any employee union or not caught in doing this will be
terminated per federal labor laws.

the posting of person information is also a violation.

glad to see you support illegal activities though.
 
jamesrage said:
Its funny how die hard union supporters act as though unions are such wonderful things. But they oppose right to work laws that makes union membership voluntary instead of mandatory as a job requirement and support thuggish tactics to force people into joining unions. I would think that if unions were that great then people would not need to be forced or intimidated into joining a union. Unions should be a choice, not a mandatory requirement for working at a job.
Click to expand...


In my, admittedly limited, involvement with being a union employee union management was in many ways no different than the company's management. Though the company's management was at least more transparent about what they really wanted.


Or as Pete Townsend once wrote - "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Right to work allows people to opt out but still benefit from union contract negotiations -- basically have their cake but not have to pay for it. In fact, right-to-work legislation is specifically crafted that way to discourage membership. Why should union members buddy up with freeloaders?
Click to expand...

Lots of places have both union and non union employees. There is no need for the union contract to apply to non members.
 
Bob N said:
For not sharing tools, knowledge or support? You got to be kidding me.:roll:
Click to expand...

creating a hostile work environment is against the law.
 
Gaius46 said:
Lots of places have both union and non union employees. There is no need for the union contract to apply to non members.
Click to expand...

I agree. non-union workers shouldn't be attached to the union contract.
 
Bob N said:
In your opinion, how.
Click to expand...

They should be fired for creating a hostile work environment. Any union member participating in this act should lose their job. Let the UAW stage a walkout in a right-to-work state. Idiotic self immolation would be a fitting end to local 412.
 
Why does the union even have the names of the people who are non-members? Do they have the name of customers and/or non-customers too?

Now if the union chose to post the name of their members, I would have a difficult time arguing that they did not have that right, subject to privacy laws, etc.
 
jmotivator said:
They should be fired for creating a hostile work environment. Any union member participating in this act should lose their job. Let the UAW stage a walkout in a right-to-work state. Idiotic self immolation would be a fitting end to local 412.
Click to expand...
How is that going to stand up in court?

Using your criteria, me, as well as other people I know, should be able to sue co workers that do not wish to hang out with you after work. :roll:
 
ludin said:
creating a hostile work environment is against the law.
Click to expand...

Using your criteria, me, as well as other people I know, should be able to sue co workers that do not wish to hang out with you after work. :roll:

How is that hostile?
 
Bob N said:
How is that going to stand up in court?

Using your criteria, me, as well as other people I know, should be able to sue co workers that do not wish to hang out with you after work. :roll:
Click to expand...

So tell me, is Local 412 suggesting not hanging out after work? :roll: Your stupid analogy is stupid.
 
Does anyone know how much union members pay a year in union fees (average fee)? I am a member of the union only because I pretty much have to be. If a student makes any kind of false accusation against me, hopefully the union will stand by me. I pay just over $700 per year to belong to the Teachers Federation.
 
Bob N said:
Using your criteria, me, as well as other people I know, should be able to sue co workers that do not wish to hang out with you after work. :roll:

How is that hostile?
Click to expand...

your strawman is a typical failure.
you putting my safety at risk at work because you are union and I am not is very much
creating a hostile work environment.

encouraging that sort of thing should also be cut off before it starts.

and no you are not using my criteria you are using your own made up distortion because you know what they did
is highly illegal.
 
jmotivator said:
So tell me, is Local 412 suggesting not hanging out after work? :roll: Your stupid analogy is stupid.
Click to expand...
Shunning is shunning, right? Have you ever worked with someone you didn't like? Did he sue you?
 
ludin said:
your strawman is a typical failure.
you putting my safety at risk at work because you are union and I am not is very much
creating a hostile work environment.
Click to expand...
That is horse hockey and you know it, too. If I bring my own tools to work and do not wish to share them with anyone, how is it that you can sue me?



ludin said:
and no you are not using my criteria you are using your own made up distortion because you know what they did
is highly illegal.
Click to expand...
I would like to see someone take that to court and say that another worker does not wish to socialize with me or support me or share his/her tools. :roll:
 
LadyMoonlight said:
Does anyone know how much union members pay a year in union fees (average fee)? I am a member of the union only because I pretty much have to be. If a student makes any kind of false accusation against me, hopefully the union will stand by me. I pay just over $700 per year to belong to the Teachers Federation.
Click to expand...

depends it looks like they pay 480-600 a year.
 
Bob N said:
That is horse hockey and you know it, too. If I bring my own tools to work and do not wish to share them with anyone, how is it that you can sue me?



I would like to see someone take that to court and say that another worker does not wish to socialize with me or support me or share his/her tools. :roll:
Click to expand...
you failing to read the argument is what is disturbing.

you not helping me lift a engine or transmission. me needing to bolt something in place and not handing me a wrench that could cause me injury
is absolutely a hostile work environment.

you putting someone else at risk simply because they don't belong to a union
1. is childish
2. pathetic.

if I am the supervisor and find that you are holding up production simply because you don't want to perform your job because someone is not union?
out you go.

you don't have to hang with them after work but not performing at work and harassing other employee's?
way to show much mature union people are.

I am glad I am not in a union and have to deal with children.
 
Bob N said:
Shunning is shunning, right? Have you ever worked with someone you didn't like? Did he sue you?
Click to expand...

No, there are different laws for the workplace and in public. Your argument falls apart from there.
 
ludin said:
Union intimidation in the work place is illegal. job harassment and creating a hostile work environment violate labor laws as well.
if I was the company I would put the union and any union employee's on notice. any employee union or not caught in doing this will be
terminated per federal labor laws.

the posting of person information is also a violation.

glad to see you support illegal activities though.
Click to expand...

jmotivator said:
Hah!! No they didn't. Nothing in that vote made their JOB any different, nor created a hostile work place. The union crybabies are the ones crapping where they eat.

It will be so much fun watching these corrupt idiots crumble.
Click to expand...


Please point to what law they are in violation of. Not even the article could cite any laws.
 
ludin said:
you failing to read the argument is what is disturbing.

you not helping me lift a engine or transmission. me needing to bolt something in place and not handing me a wrench that could cause me injury
is absolutely a hostile work environment.

you putting someone else at risk simply because they don't belong to a union
1. is childish
2. pathetic.

if I am the supervisor and find that you are holding up production simply because you don't want to perform your job because someone is not union?
out you go.

you don't have to hang with them after work but not performing at work and harassing other employee's?
way to show much mature union people are.

I am glad I am not in a union and have to deal with children.
Click to expand...
ludin:where in that article from the OP states that it was OK to do those things while at work?

You're reading things that don't exist, here.

1.)Not sharing knowledge. (If you were hired to do the same job as me and I do not wish to stop and help you out every time you fail to do it because of proper knowledge, why should that be anyone's fault but the person that should be doing that job?)

2.)Not supporting someone. (This goes on in non union places. If I don't like you why would I care if you kept your job or not?)

3.)Not sharing tools. (This also happens in non union places. They're my tools. Get your own. I have seen plenty of times where people do not return tools they borrow.)

So sue away. Good Luck with that. :shrug:
 
jmotivator said:
No, there are different laws for the workplace and in public. Your argument falls apart from there.
Click to expand...
OK. I want to see different laws that makes someone do the following, OK?

*Constantly drop the job you are doing to share knowledge the other guy should of had when he came in.
*Support. Beyond helping you lift something heavy, I should like you, too. :roll:
*My tools are your tools--even if you lose them. :roll: x2
 
The jealousy of the non union workforce constantly amazes me.
 
jet57 said:
The jealousy of the non union workforce constantly amazes me.
Click to expand...
You would think that those folks would choose another vocation. Because even if those names weren't listed, you can't tell me that the non union folks would not have the slightest inkling that there is going to be some kind of estrangement sometime or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom