- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I think I'll stick with Lincoln, thanks.
You stick with the lie.
I think I'll stick with Lincoln, thanks.
I disagree. For all the hand wringing that conservatives have had over the "liberal" decisions of recent, I fully expect the conservative majority SCOTUS to rule against unions.Sounds like a pretty easy win for the unions. The four liberals will side with so will at least Roberts. Roberts will say if you don't like the situation, take it up with your state legislature.
:lamo So thats how union shops start? A group of buddies just get together, and say hey there should be no freeloaders here? And walah like magic they get that?
Having the right to unionize does not equate to having a union shop....
You know damn well there is just more than that. Benefits is a major one you also agree to.
Yes they are, especially in the union... You know, the whole democratic process, the bringing forward of grievances, the VOTE...
Uhhhhh youre telling me when people agree to work for someone they dont agree to additional agreements beyond "you're hired" and here is your salary? Vacation time? Paid time off? Benefits? Drug tests? Background checks? Pensions/401k's? Sick leave? The list can go on and on...
There is a leap... Union shop compared to racism reinforced by laws.
Uhhh, are you saying that school boards dont have the right by law to negotiated with a teachers union?
Nope. Nor do I see how this has anything to do with this current debate other than it has to deal with unions. What does the gov seizure of Montgomery Ward have anything to do with this case?
But you see if they are a public teacher then they still get all the benefits, and are still covered by the contract....
What about the "free market"? Dont want to pay dues, go find another job, perhaps a private sector teaching job?
To the extremist, I guess that is just another name for truth that they find uncomfortable.
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
Hence: freeloader.
Actually, there is. The union doesn't just represent the dues paying members. It has to represent all of the employees.
You thinking the union benefits them does not mean they actually benefit them. In fact, not long ago there was a bakery union that literally killed thousands of jobs for non-bakery union members, and the bakery union members.
Sounds like another problem created by regulation.
I suppose if there were one set of wages and working conditions for union members and a different one for non members, then the problem would be solved and non members wouldn't have to pay for the representation that they're not benefiting from. I wonder how that might work out?
Of course there is one wage for the more skilled employee, another for the less skilled.doesnt have to be one pay for ALL the other workers
each one can negotiate their best rates, and their best benefits
some will get more, some less
do you think skill level plays a part in how much someone is worth?
i sure in the hell do.....
Of course there is one wage for the more skilled employee, another for the less skilled.
But, there isn't one pay grade for union members, another for non members.
Closed shops should be banned outright. However, unions should be under zero obligation to represent non-union workers. They haven't paid for the privilege. If a shop has both, so be it.What? I dont want to repeal that federal law..... There is a clear understanding that when you agree to take the job you are represented by a union, this is a union workplace, you pay dues, and they bargin on your behalf. You have the right to vote up or down the contract as well.
And that employer agreed to make his shop a union shop
Thus agreeing to a union shop if you agree to work there
No its not. Additional arrangements are put in all the time in contracts.
There is clear merit; you just accepted a job where the contract was agreed upon by a collective bargaining force.
I wonder if all the right-wingers worried about the amount of money required of employees for union dues are worried about the amount of money taken out of employee paychecks to pay management?
Henrin is right, you're making no sense. Pay comes from revenue/profits. And management gets more control because management is taking more risk.You're criticizing unions for taking money out of people's paychecks in the form of union dues when that's the exact same thing that employers do. They have direct control over their employees' paychecks, and the employer's paycheck itself is provided by the labor of the workers.
I suppose if there were one set of wages and working conditions for union members and a different one for non members, then the problem would be solved and non members wouldn't have to pay for the representation that they're not benefiting from. I wonder how that might work out?
I know a guy... strong union guy... who was employed by a trucking distribution facility. He commonly and proudly boasted that he pumped gas for $24/hr. He proudly boasted that his job description was so limited that, if there were no truck to pump gas into, he could pretty much just do nothing as long as he wasn't overtly just standing around. He proudly boasted that if management got on his case for *anything*, the union would go to bat for him, even when he knew management was in the right (and he would let them). And when asked directly by me, he admitted he was way overpaid considering the level of skill and work that was required of him, but because he could get away with it, he was a strong union guy.
Who's the freeloader?
What was there about my statement regarding this situation that you fail to comprehend?
there should be
the union bargains for many at one time.....some great, some average, some poor employees
the individual bargains just for them alone.....if they are one of the "great employees" their pay should be above the union rate
if average, around the union rate, and poor....they shouldnt get the job
that is the way it works.....when you negotiate for everyone like in a union....you know you have all 3 types of employees
the individual has no such barriers
Great for the non-unions members. Unions are not dwindling because there is an evil conspiracy, it is just because unions serve no helpful purpose, especially to those that are forced to be in them.
At least not if you're in favor of tilting at windmills engaging in uneven negotiations.
don't worry your pretty little head about my comprehension..
...i'll take this to mean you have a very strong dislike of freeloaders....which is a very odd position coming from a loyal lefty Democrat.
how do you reconcile your dislike of freeloaders with your overt support of social programs such as welfare?... or are you consistent and ware now going to demonize welfare recipients as freeloaders?
The highest paid people are not in unions. Stamping sheet metal is supposed to be easy which leads to "uneven" demand power.
No, the highest paid people are in the board room. Unfortunately, only an elite few can be in the board room.
No, the highest paid people are in the board room. Unfortunately, only an elite few can be in the board room.
Build bigger boardrooms!