Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 118

Thread: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

  1. #81
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    38,007

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, not when the unions are setting the wage scale. If it's not possible for them do so, then what good would they be?
    in the federal sector, federal employees cannot strike
    neither can they negotiate pay
    but they can and do negotiate conditions of work
    things such as flex time, comp time, dress code, entitlement to work overtime, grievance resolution, performance evaluation procedure, transparency of bonus distribution, place or work, reassignment, posts of duty, use of the computer, use of the telecommunications system ...
    the other things that an employee would be concerned about




    That's just a dodge which doesn't address the point.
    i am not certain you ever made a point, sport. but throw your point - the one you believe was inadequately addressed - out there for us all to see and let me take a whack at it
    it will be my pleasure
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ĎHey I was wrong.' I donít know that Iíll ever admit that, but Iíll find some kind of an excuse. ~ tRump
    seldom right but never in doubt

  2. #82
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 07:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Ughhh. First of all, paragraphs and sentences are your friend. This is your only warning; I'm not going to read through every post you write if it's in this format.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you make it apparent you are unacquainted with labor provisions
    the employer cannot be forced to enter into any particular contract
    it can be required to participate in good faith at the bargaining table in an attempt to write a contract
    but the terms of any contract are the outcome of bargaining by the parties
    Why should they be required to participate in good faith, if they aren't interested in what the union is offering? If I stop you on the street and ask you to buy my book for $20, should the government compel you to negotiate with me in good faith? Or should you be able to just tell me no?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    the contract is entirely one sided when one of the sides is incompetent
    sometimes that is the description of the union's representatives
    other times it is the employer's representatives who exhibit their ineptitude
    No, it's entirely one-sided period. Negotiations are along the lines of "I'll give you X if you give me Y." The union gives NOTHING to the employer, so it's entirely one-sided.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    the union offers employees who share the interests of the company in a way that employees who know they are easily expendable do not
    If the employer believes that is the case, it is free to make an explicit policy regarding employee termination so that its employees do not feel expendable. They don't need a union to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    it offers employees with a knowledge base; employees who actually do the work of the company. they know where the inefficiencies are
    This is nothing that couldn't be accomplished just as easily without the union.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    and relative to unions representing public organizations, the union can provide continuity which might otherwise not be possible
    How? Are they going to force employees not to quit if they want to?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    that is because the public entities are usually headed by political appointees, who stay only for the duration of the term of the elected official who appointed them. they frequently come into an organization knowing little to nothing about the entity they are to head. they often bring with them a retinue of hangers on who also serve at the whim of the elected official. knowing little about what the organization they are to manage does, they frequently insist on doing some of the things they should not. the appointees often make inappropriate, politically motivated decisions an experienced learder would not make
    then the managers, career employees, who report to these appointed officials, must salute and follow their legal orders, no matter how wrongheaded those orders may be
    Again, this could be accomplished just as easily without the union. It isn't THE UNION that has the experience to steer the new management in the right direction, it's the EMPLOYEES.

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba
    and the rank and file union members must follow the managers' legal orders - unless the union contract provides for a different way to handle those matters ... such as how to hire people, and how to promote people, and how to solicit contributions. by having a contract specifying what can and cannot be done by the employees, it limits some of the harm that might otherwise be inflicted on the organization and the organization's ethics, by the political appointees
    Again, the union is not necessary for ANY of this. If the employer agrees with you that those things are advantages, they are free to set their own policies regarding hiring/promotions.

    So once again I ask: What does the union offer management that the free market does not?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #83
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,002

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    well let's look at what you said:

    now look at what i said:

    democratic vote question
    ANSWERED
    government mistreating its employees question
    ANSWERED

    both questions asked and answered

    which makes your most recent post
    Dude, you seem to think that if any group of people takes a "vote," then that's "democratic." I explained exactly why it was not.

    By this reasoning, when Don Corleone and his "colleagues" voted on how to split up the crime syndicates, well, that was "democratic" too. After all, they voted, right?


    WRONG
    yet again
    Right, because you have declared it so. Yet, you said nothing to refute it. I'll repeat what I said: unions exist for one purpose, and that's to get the most compensation for the least amount of work. Explain how that's wrong. (Hint: explain the purpose for which unions exist if what I what I said isn't correct.)
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  4. #84
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    05-01-18 @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,491

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Dude, you seem to think that if any group of people takes a "vote," then that's "democratic." I explained exactly why it was not.

    By this reasoning, when Don Corleone and his "colleagues" voted on how to split up the crime syndicates, well, that was "democratic" too. After all, they voted, right?




    Right, because you have declared it so. Yet, you said nothing to refute it. I'll repeat what I said: unions exist for one purpose, and that's to get the most compensation for the least amount of work. Explain how that's wrong. (Hint: explain the purpose for which unions exist if what I what I said isn't correct.)
    unions exist to ensure fair treatment of employees, to enforce health and safety standards, to work for the benefit of said employees in contract negotiations....unions work on the premise that the strength of a group is greater than the strength of just one individual. if you think that management in most businesses give a rats ass about one individual , you couldnt be more wrong. if one person is making waves, it is easy to get rid of them...if that person belongs to a union, it has to be a LEGIT reason. do you enjoy time and a half for your overtime hours? THANK THE UNIONS...do you enjoy your weekends? THANK THE UNIONS...do you like the idea that your employer has to adhere to health and safety regulations? THANK THE UNIONS. all of this is enjoyed today because unions fought for it, fought for better working conditions, fought for a fair days wage for a fair days work.....even non-union employees enjoy these benefits because UNIONS fought for them.

  5. #85
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,002

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    unions exist to ensure fair treatment of employees, to enforce health and safety standards, to work for the benefit of said employees in contract negotiations....unions work on the premise that the strength of a group is greater than the strength of just one individual. if you think that management in most businesses give a rats ass about one individual , you couldnt be more wrong. if one person is making waves, it is easy to get rid of them...if that person belongs to a union, it has to be a LEGIT reason. do you enjoy time and a half for your overtime hours? THANK THE UNIONS...do you enjoy your weekends? THANK THE UNIONS...do you like the idea that your employer has to adhere to health and safety regulations? THANK THE UNIONS. all of this is enjoyed today because unions fought for it, fought for better working conditions, fought for a fair days wage for a fair days work.....even non-union employees enjoy these benefits because UNIONS fought for them.


    This boils down to exactly what I said -- unions work to get their members the most compensation (pay, benefits, working conditions, perks, etc.) for the least amount of work (limits on work hours, mandated breaks, vacation time, extra pay for overtime, etc). Your litany of things unions have achieved pretty much makes the point for me.

    The soapboxing is all very well, but it still is what it is. And frankly, why should it be any other way?
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    05-01-18 @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,491

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    This boils down to exactly what I said -- unions work to get their members the most compensation (pay, benefits, working conditions, perks, etc.) for the least amount of work (limits on work hours, mandated breaks, vacation time, extra pay for overtime, etc). Your litany of things unions have achieved pretty much makes the point for me.

    The soapboxing is all very well, but it still is what it is. And frankly, why should it be any other way?
    did you not understand the whole 'fair days work for a fair days pay'??? and exactly why should i settle for less than safe working conditions?? how many hours do you think a company should be able to work someone in a given week?? do people not deserve a life outside of the factory?? and what is wrong with wanting the best pay and working conditions that i can get for the work i do?
    Last edited by randel; 01-31-10 at 04:15 PM.

  7. #87
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    38,007

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Ughhh. First of all, paragraphs and sentences are your friend. This is your only warning; I'm not going to read through every post you write if it's in this format.
    well that's an offer i can't refuse
    not! only wish others with so little to offer were so easily put off
    i don't care what your writing preferences are - this is your last warning
    nope
    i was wrong to say that
    if you come up with this silly crap again i will be only too delighted to embarrass you with your own words again
    so, this may not actually be your last warning

    Why should they be required to participate in good faith, if they aren't interested in what the union is offering?
    federal statutes require it
    If I stop you on the street and ask you to buy my book for $20, should the government compel you to negotiate with me in good faith? Or should you be able to just tell me no?
    i have nothing invested in this relationship, where you are simply offering me a book to purchase. in the work environment, i do have a large investment. the union minimizes the ability of the business to exploit the worker
    as an example, it keeps me from being fired the day before i am eligible to become invested in the retirement plan
    it keeps me from being fired because i am sick, when the employer would just as soon hire someone else to replace me - thru no fault of my own
    it amazes me that you can't figure this out on your own

    No, it's entirely one-sided period. Negotiations are along the lines of "I'll give you X if you give me Y." The union gives NOTHING to the employer, so it's entirely one-sided.
    you have absolutely no negotiation skills then, which may explain the weak debating ability
    the employer wants a new performance evaluation system
    i want to implement a credit hour system
    the employer is willing to give me the opportunity for the bargaining unit to earn credit hours if i will agree to allow the employer to revise the performance system
    that's a singular real world example
    notice how both sides got what they wanted. win-win

    If the employer believes that is the case, it is free to make an explicit policy regarding employee termination so that its employees do not feel expendable. They don't need a union to do that.
    no, they don't need a union to implement that employee protection. and the well managed companies don't have a union - probably because they know how smart it is to work with their employees
    but your question was, what does the union offer to the employer
    and it is my contention that an employee who believes that by helping his company he is helping his own career, his own future prospects, he is going to be a better employee for the company than one who is simply trading time for money. it would appear you might be in the latter category

    This is nothing that couldn't be accomplished just as easily without the union.
    why would an employee, who is trading time for money, and is without an interest in the company's progress, be interested in telling management where savings could be made
    and a follow-up question would be, what apparatus is in place for the company to solicit employee input for the betterment of the company


    How? Are they going to force employees not to quit if they want to?
    the continuity i was speaking about was continuity of processes and procedures as defined by the contract negotiated by and between labor and management
    the 13th amendment let's them quit if they should want. let me know if you need a reference, i'll post a cite

    Again, this could be accomplished just as easily without the union. It isn't THE UNION that has the experience to steer the new management in the right direction, it's the EMPLOYEES.
    ok, then you tell me what mechanism would otherwise be in place to use the institutional knowledge, to explain to the incoming political appointees that they cannot do the things they want to do because that will damage the organization's interests. it is the legal authority of the union, that ability to speak for the employees, that provides a voice which would otherwise be silent
    those middle managers, who MUST follow the appointees' orders, often provide information to the union to prevent the appintees from doing stupid stuff. the union becomes the third leg of the chair, providing stability to the public organization

    Again, the union is not necessary for ANY of this. If the employer agrees with you that those things are advantages, they are free to set their own policies regarding hiring/promotions.
    you presume that in the void, where there is no union, that the political appointees are going to create some mechanism within the organization over which they preside, which mechanism will tell them that they cannot do the stupid things that they have proposed to do
    does it sound as stupid when i repeat it to you as it did when i first read your post

    So once again I ask: What does the union offer management that the free market does not?
    i already listed them
    use your mouse and go see what they are
    you have offered nothing to indicate that which the union offers is not of valid benefit to the enterprise
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    I may be wrong, I mean I may stand before you in six months and say, ĎHey I was wrong.' I donít know that Iíll ever admit that, but Iíll find some kind of an excuse. ~ tRump
    seldom right but never in doubt

  8. #88
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,002

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    did you not understand the whole 'fair days work for a fair days pay'???
    Amount of work vs. compensation


    and exactly why should i settle for less than safe working conditions??
    Compensation


    how many hours do you think a company should be able to work someone in a given week??
    Amount of work


    do people not deserve a life outside of the factory??
    Amount of work


    and what is wrong with wanting the best pay and working conditions that i can for the work i do?
    Compensation



    You're not disagreeing with me about what a union exists to do.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    05-01-18 @ 04:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,491

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Amount of work vs. compensation




    Compensation




    Amount of work




    Amount of work




    Compensation



    You're not disagreeing with me about what a union exists to do.
    do you have a problem with any thing i stated? i'm asking your thoughts...your ducking me.

  10. #90
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    32,002

    Re: Most Union Members Now Work for Government [edited]

    Quote Originally Posted by randel View Post
    do you have a problem with any thing i stated? i'm asking your thoughts...your ducking me.
    No, you're not "asking," you're screaming at me, because you think that because I stated what a union does, it automatically means I think it should not be allowed to do those things.
    It's not "tolerance" if you already approve of what you purport to "tolerate."

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •