How many here belong a union in the public or private sector? Why? or Why not?

Moot said:

You call union people "facists" in one breath and then in the next you say you're pro-union and then in the next breath you proceed to bash unions? Am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Yes, you sure are. I'm calling the pro-union types in this thread that support mandatory union membership fascists. You're trying to strong arm money out of citizens that want nothing to do with you. If your union would offer something that would benefit their lives, they would join it. Right to work was a major blow to shakedown practices of many unions.

RabidAlpaca said:

If that's all true, then why do you believe that people should be forced to join unions? People tend to act in their own best interest. If joining a union would improve their lives, they would.

Click to expand...

Who is forced to work for GM? or Ford. Other then certain trades and professions being part of a union/association is not mandatory to work in a particular field. If you want to work in the auto assembly industry you can work for Honda or Toyota instead.

People have the choice to work for GM or Ford, if it requires joining a union to work there, they have the choice to work there or find work somewhere else

Lord Tammerlain said:

Who is forced to work for GM? or Ford. Other then certain trades and professions being part of a union/association is not mandatory to work in a particular field. If you want to work in the auto assembly industry you can work for Honda or Toyota instead.

People have the choice to work for GM or Ford, if it requires joining a union to work there, they have the choice to work there or find work somewhere else

Click to expand...

Not anymore, thanks to right to work. You're only pro union mandation because you're in a union. I can guarantee if you didn't want to be in a union you'd have beef with it.

Liberty: 1
Union-Mandating-Fascists: 0

RabidAlpaca said:

Not anymore, thanks to right to work. You're only pro union mandation because you're in a union. I can guarantee if you didn't want to be in a union you'd have beef with it.

Liberty: 1
Union-Mandating-Fascists: 0

Click to expand...

I am not in a union.

Currently I am in a management position (technical), at a company that does have a union (teamsters) which I have not been a part of.

As for Ford or GM, they could still require joining the union as a condition of working there. Especially if the union runs the pension plan

What kind of person would want to ride on the backs of their union colleagues without contributing to their struggle?

Lord Tammerlain said:

I am not in a union.

Currently I am in a management position (technical), at a company that does have a union (teamsters) which I have not been a part of.

As for Ford or GM, they could still require joining the union as a condition of working there. Especially if the union runs the pension plan

Click to expand...

Ah, so you just like to have your cake and eat it too? You've decided to not be in the union, but you want unions to be able to force people to pay them. Quite hypocritical.

RabidAlpaca said:

Ah, so you just like to have your cake and eat it too? You've decided to not be in the union, but you want unions to be able to force people to pay them. Quite hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Where is this force you are talking about?

Everyone in the company I work at who is in the union has choice to work there or not. If they dont work there they dont have to be part of the union. They have the freedom to accept the position or no, if they accept the position they have to join the union, as part of the contract with the company. If they do not want to be part of the union, they have the freedom to find a different job.

As for cake?

I do not enjoy some of the benifits the union gets like shift differential, double time after 4 hrs of overtime, dinner money after 2 hrs of overtime. Of course I get paid more, and have a better retirement program

RabidAlpaca said:

Yes, you sure are. I'm calling the pro-union types in this thread that support mandatory union membership fascists. You're trying to strong arm money out of citizens that want nothing to do with you. If your union would offer something that would benefit their lives, they would join it. Right to work was a major blow to shakedown practices of many unions.

Click to expand...

Well, it might interest you to know that I live in a right to work state and the average wage here is below the national average. When I was younger I worked for a company here in Utah that paid low wages and long hours with no overtime and no benefits. When I moved to California I got a union job doing the same work and got paid 4x as much plus benefits which included pension and healthcare. Yes Virginia, the union does benefit our lives.

Rocketman said:

Slow one, there are other contributors to the bottom line besides picking peas.:lamo

Click to expand...

Yes, you can be easily replaced with a pea picker who is willing to accept lower wages than you and if you want to compete, you too will have to accept lower wages. There's your bottomline, pea picker.

Moot said:

Well, it might interest you to know that I live in a right to work state and the average wage here is below the national average. When I was younger I worked for a company here in Utah that paid low wages and long hours with no overtime and no benefits. When I moved to California I got a union job doing the same work and got paid 4x as much plus benefits which included pension and healthcare. Yes Virginia, the union does benefit our lives.

Click to expand...

Seems like a no-brainer then. If the benefits are so obvious, why do you have to force people to join?

RabidAlpaca said:

Seems like a no-brainer then. If the benefits are so obvious, why do you have to force people to join?

Click to expand...

The benefits wouldn't exist if it weren't for the unions. For a no brainer, you seem to have a mental block about how unions work and benefit people. Again, no one forced me to work for a union company in California, but in right to work state of Utah I was forced to work non-union because the state made it difficult if not impossible for the union to organize here.

Moot said:

The benefits wouldn't exist if it weren't for the unions. For a no brainer, you seem to have a mental block about how unions work and benefit people. Again, no one forced me to work for a union company in California, but in right to work state of Utah I was forced to work non-union because the state made it difficult if not impossible for the union to organize here.

Click to expand...

That's the difference though. You were lucky enough to find a union job that greatly benefitted you, and you made the decision yourself. You on the other hand are trying to make that decision for everybody else. Most people who join a union will not make 4x what they did before, otherwise everyone would be beating down the door to do it. Why is it that Germany can have such high union membership, but have a federal law that mandates it must be 100% voluntary?

Lord Tammerlain said:

It certainly is not a violation of that right

If you want to work at a specific company and the company offered you a job, with the condition of joining a union, you are not forced to work there, you can freely decide to take the job which has the condition of joining a union or not. Remember it is not your job, it is a position for employement offered to you by the company which can apply certain restrictions and conditions of employement

Click to expand...

It is just as much of a violation of my right to freedom of association as people claim that it is for that woman that was told to go home because she wasn't wearing the proper BK attire due to her religion. If an employer must accomodate a persons religious rights then they certainly must accomodate my right to associate with who I want so long as it does not affect thier companies profits. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now besides that, what if an employer does want to hire non-union employees? Why can't they? Oh that's right. Because if they attempt to then Unions claim that the Employer is trying to Union Bust and takes them to court.

Unions Force companies into contracts. If a Union forms and tries to "negotiate" a contract but the company refuses the contract what happens? One of two things depending on the circumstances. 1: The Union goes on strike. Hurting the companies profits. During this time the Company is not allowed to fire those on strike or hire replacements...even temporary replacements. Or 2: The employer gets accused of trying to Union Bust. Again hurting the Companies profits by making them pay lawyers and eventually a settlement since more often than not the court sides with the Union. (that whole pesky freedom of association thing which is only touted when it suits union bosses and is totally ignored when it goes against them) Due to this the Company must eventually capitulate and inevitably part of that contract forbids the company from hiring non-union workers. So its not really the company which is forbidding the non-union worker from getting hired. It is the Union. Which means instead of sueing the Company for not hiring me I would sue the Union for forcing the Company to not hire those that do not want to join a union. Because it is the Union...not the company...which is forbidding both My right to associate with who I want and the Companies right to associate with who they want to. Remember, Contracts cannot generally interfere with peoples rights. For instance a contract cannot excuse murdering someone and thereby taking away thier right to life.

Moot said:

Well, if your new job is competing with union labor and benefits, then why would they pay you less than what a union job pays? The union is setting the standard for your wages. Without the union you can be sure you'd be making a lot less with no benefits whatsoever.

Click to expand...

They compete with other non-union companies. Without the union, I would still be making the same, and getting the same benefits, and following the same safety regulations because all but the pay is mandated by law. My wage is determined by my skill set, and the market. The union is an obsolete parasite now.

Moot said:

Yes, you can be easily replaced with a pea picker who is willing to accept lower wages than you and if you want to compete, you too will have to accept lower wages. There's your bottomline, pea picker.

Click to expand...

Pea pickers are general labor slow one. Performance based people with skill are not in this category, now go collect the carts at Walmart pea picker.

Kal'Stang said:

It is just as much of a violation of my right to freedom of association as people claim that it is for that woman that was told to go home because she wasn't wearing the proper BK attire due to her religion. If an employer must accomodate a persons religious rights then they certainly must accomodate my right to associate with who I want so long as it does not affect thier companies profits. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Click to expand...

Just because you are part of a union does not mean you have to associate with them

Now besides that, what if an employer does want to hire non-union employees? Why can't they? Oh that's right. Because if they attempt to then Unions claim that the Employer is trying to Union Bust and takes them to court.

Unions Force companies into contracts. If a Union forms and tries to "negotiate" a contract but the company refuses the contract what happens? One of two things depending on the circumstances. 1: The Union goes on strike. Hurting the companies profits. During this time the Company is not allowed to fire those on strike or hire replacements...even temporary replacements. Or 2: The employer gets accused of trying to Union Bust. Again hurting the Companies profits by making them pay lawyers and eventually a settlement since more often than not the court sides with the Union. (that whole pesky freedom of association thing which is only touted when it suits union bosses and is totally ignored when it goes against them) Due to this the Company must eventually capitulate and inevitably part of that contract forbids the company from hiring non-union workers. So its not really the company which is forbidding the non-union worker from getting hired. It is the Union. Which means instead of sueing the Company for not hiring me I would sue the Union for forcing the Company to not hire those that do not want to join a union. Because it is the Union...not the company...which is forbidding both My right to associate with who I want and the Companies right to associate with who they want to. Remember, Contracts cannot generally interfere with peoples rights. For instance a contract cannot excuse murdering someone and thereby taking away thier right to life.

Click to expand...

Have you never heard of replacement works or also known as scabs? A lot of companies have hired them during strikes or lock outs. It of course depends on the specific state or province if it is allowed or not, but I expect it is allowed in far more states then it is not allowed. As for company profits being hurt during the process of a strike or lock out, No s__t sherklock, that is the point of strike or lockout. That is the only real power a union has, the ability to with hold the labor that a company requires in order to operate. A single person not going to work does not have much bargining power, the entire production line with holding labor does. The company has the choice to wait, hire replacements, move production, shut the facility down etc. Catepillar has done that in the past in the US and in Canada.

As for your right to associate, you do not have to join a union, no one is holding a gun to your head to work for Ford and join the UAW, you can work for Walmart instead and not be part of a union. The position is only yours if you accept the conditions of employement which might include being part of a union, or an association. So if you do not want to be part of a union dont work for a company that requires you joining one. It is entirely a VOLUNTARY decision to work at a place that requires union membership

RabidAlpaca said:

That's the difference though. You were lucky enough to find a union job that greatly benefitted you, and you made the decision yourself. You on the other hand are trying to make that decision for everybody else. Most people who join a union will not make 4x what they did before, otherwise everyone would be beating down the door to do it.

Click to expand...

You're the one trying force people to not join a union with every breath you take. Sad thing is you have to use misinformation, propaganda, ad hominem attacks and deceit to do it.

In the field I was in they are beating down the door to do it, precisely because it pays good wages and benefits. If non-union companies wanted to attract qualified skilled labor they have to offer competive wages and benefits to what the union companies are paying. I worked for both non-union and union companies and I know whereof I speak and I can guarentee you that without the union there would be low wages, long hours with no overtime and little or no benefits for everyone and very few skilled people would want to work in that field.

I worked in South Korea and saw first hand what it would be like without any labor laws or unions. People there are forced to work 16 hour days, six days a week for low wages with no overtime or benefits. When there were deadlines to meet, which was more often than not, people would work even longer hours and would only take time to rest by sleeping on little mats under their desks and then back to work. It was uh an eye opening experience and gave me a taste of what it would be like in the US without labor laws or unions.

Why is it that Germany can have such high union membership, but have a federal law that mandates it must be 100% voluntary

Click to expand...

We have laws mandating unions be 100% voluntary as well. But we also have laws discriminating against unions and make it harder to organize...does Germany have that? If not, then perhaps that's why Germany's unions and their economy are so successful.

United States labor law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surtr said:

They compete with other non-union companies. Without the union, I would still be making the same, and getting the same benefits, and following the same safety regulations because all but the pay is mandated by law. My wage is determined by my skill set, and the market. The union is an obsolete parasite now.

Click to expand...

Do you think those labor and safety laws that you now enjoy would exist without the labor movement?

"... The labour movement has been instrumental in the enacting of laws protecting labour rights in the 19th and 20th centuries. Labour rights have been integral to the social and economic development since the Industrial Revolution. Employment standards are social norms (in some cases also technical standards) for the minimum socially acceptable conditions under which employees or contractors will work. Government agencies (such as the former U.S. Employment Standards Administration) enforce employment standards codified by labour law (legislative, regulatory, or judicial).

Labour law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RabidAlpaca said:

I support unions, and I live in Germany where they aren't awful. The problem with American unions is they are corrupt and more about making money for the bosses, and fighting the employees, not the employers.

Click to expand...

You fault the union bosses who make $250 a week rather than the corporate lobbyists who make that much a minute eh? To each their own I suppose.

Moot said:

Do you think those labor and safety laws that you now enjoy would exist without the labor movement?

"... The labour movement has been instrumental in the enacting of laws protecting labour rights in the 19th and 20th centuries. Labour rights have been integral to the social and economic development since the Industrial Revolution. Employment standards are social norms (in some cases also technical standards) for the minimum socially acceptable conditions under which employees or contractors will work. Government agencies (such as the former U.S. Employment Standards Administration) enforce employment standards codified by labour law (legislative, regulatory, or judicial).

Labour law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

OK, some big ones came in the 1930's but, since the 1950's, name some recent U.S. labor laws passed that were supported by, rather than sought to limit the power of, labor unions. Unions were often the target of, rather proponents of, the civil rights act that made workplace discrimination based on race/sex illegal. The whistle blower labor laws did not originate out of unions either.

Kal'Stang said:

And yet unions make it into the top 10 in donations despite thier small number. For being so small they sure do have a lot of clout.

Click to expand...

Thank God that unions are still hanging on, as without them workers have no representation against corporate lobbyists.

And yes, if you live in a union state and don't have the money to move people are forced to join a union if they want to pursue thier chosen profession.

Click to expand...

Given that only 7% of American jobs are union jobs, I'm afraid that doesn't carry any water.

Rocketman said:

Pea pickers are general labor slow one. Performance based people with skill are not in this category, now go collect the carts at Walmart pea picker.

Click to expand...

For this discussion you are a pea picker, or if you prefer, a skilled pea picker who can easily be replaced by another pea picker willing to accept lower wages than what you make. There sure seems to be an abundant of consultants these days and businesses are more often than not finding they are a waste of time and money.

7 signs YOUR consultant is full of shit! | Charlie Wang

It's just a matter of time before you find yourself working at Walmart and complaining about your piddley wage, slower one.

Moot said:

You're the one trying force people to not join a union with every breath you take. Sad thing is you have to use misinformation, propaganda, ad hominem attacks and deceit to do it.

In the field I was in they are beating down the door to do it, precisely because it pays good wages and benefits. If non-union companies wanted to attract qualified skilled labor they have to offer competive wages and benefits to what the union companies are paying. I worked for both non-union and union companies and I know whereof I speak and I can guarentee you that without the union there would be low wages, long hours with no overtime and little or no benefits for everyone and very few skilled people would want to work in that field.

I worked in South Korea and saw first hand what it would be like without any labor laws or unions. People there are forced to work 16 hour days, six days a week for low wages with no overtime or benefits. When there were deadlines to meet, which was more often than not, people would work even longer hours and would only take time to rest by sleeping on little mats under their desks and then back to work. It was uh an eye opening experience and gave me a taste of what it would be like in the US without labor laws or unions.

We have laws mandating unions be 100% voluntary as well. But we also have laws discriminating against unions and make it harder to organize...does Germany have that? If not, then perhaps that's why Germany's unions and their economy are so successful.

United States labor law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

For the last time, I'm for unions, just against compulsory membership. If the unions benefit the people, they will join, you don't have to force them.

Catawba said:

You fault the union bosses who make $250 a week rather than the corporate lobbyists who make that much a minute eh? To each their own I suppose.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the unions should do a better job of negotiating. Unions are there to provide a counter balance. I'm for unions, but no one has give me a good reason why people need to be forced into paying unions that don't want to be in them.

Moot said:

For this discussion you are a pea picker, or if you prefer, a skilled pea picker who can easily be replaced by another pea picker willing to accept lower wages than what you make. There sure seems to be an abundant of consultants these days and businesses are more often than not finding they are a waste of time and money.

7 signs YOUR consultant is full of ****! | Charlie Wang

It's just a matter of time before you find yourself working at Walmart and complaining about your piddley wage, slower one.

Click to expand...

Keep tellling yourself that to make yourself feel better about your own short comings. Experience and performance pay off, union laborer is the perfect definition of a pea picker.