• 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!

‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

In a word no. And my other posts in this thread clarify my initial comments. But then again, when one habitually uses a WiFi hotspot (even with an airport booster) from under a bridge? The most simplistic and obvious of facts can elude them.

Yes, your posts do clarify that you are dishonestly claiming that the union is putting people in danger because of what some unnamed "bad actors" might possibly do.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Yes, your posts do clarify that you are dishonestly claiming that the union is putting people in danger because of what some unnamed "bad actors" might possibly do.
No, actually they don't if one is not dishonest. Is that also an issue from down under?
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Yes, freedom of association works both ways, however, when it comes to setting a standard for a skill and keeping that standard, the all in policy not only creates a healthier environment but is but demonstrates a consistency that keeps management from pitting one against the other; which management always has done and brings about a reason for collective bargaining in and of itself.

evidently you don't think so. if the company isn't run right or treat it's employee's correctly then they leave for better positions elsewhere and the company goes under as it loses all it's talent.

That – makes no sense. Can you do that again?

actually it makes perfect sense.

Again: how can a union make it worse for you in the long run? I retired at 50 because of my union. And having no problem with unions is a good thing. I have no problem with non union shops: if that’s what they want, good for them. I have problems with unfair tactics like right to work: eventually, and as we have seen over the years as unions have declined, the non union shop has no ability whatsoever to better their condition, avoid discrimination politics in the workplace or plan a future that they can really depend on, as has been seen by several collapses of 401k plans over the years: my ex-mother in law lost everything when her airline employer went through a collapse.

yeah and i know non-union people that retired earlier what is your point exactly? i know union guys that retire later along with non-union guys. who cares if you retired at 50.
unions have declined because of themselves. companies have improved working conditions and other things to the point that people feel a union won't get them anything.
you are wrong. people have the right to work and not have to join a union. the union doesn't own the job the company does.

sure they do. if working conditions violate laws they can file legal disputes and other measure to improve working conditions. if the working conditions are that bad then they leave for some where better. maybe she should have invested in something other than the airline she worked for. i don't own company stock in my company. i have it diversely invested over multiple sectors so that type of thing doesn't happen.

And “unions” don’t create a hostile working environment: employees create their own conditions of cohesion. And nobody can guarantee anything, so I don’t know what your point is there.

tell that to the union issue in this thread. yes the union does create hostile work enviroments. posting legit workers names and where they work is intimidation at least.
there is a group of ironworkers i think in PA that are currently under arrest along with their union boss for all sorts of charges from threats to vandalism intimidation etc ...

10 leaders of Ironworkers Local 401 charged in racketeering indictment - Philly.com
they had a good acronym THUGS.

hmm according to you unions don't do this WRONG.

As far as what non union auto workers are making; again you missed the side of the barn with the cannon you’re holding: do you think that the UAW and other unions had just a little bit to do with that?

these places offered the going rate of labor. more so they wanted to offer their workers enough incentive so as to not unionize.
which they have been successful with.

if they did unionize they would lose money not gain anything.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

No, actually they don't if one is not dishonest. Is that also an issue from down under?

You should come up with something new. "nuh-uh" and "You're a troll" get pretty old, pretty fast
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

You should come up with something new. "nuh-uh" and "You're a troll" get pretty old, pretty fast
You should come up with a link and a quotation of mine that supports your "awareness" of my comments. Use those lens wipes I mentioned yesterday before you do though.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Why not? Cite what law disallows companies from disclosing that a person was terminated and/or why.



"The motive?" I'm sure some have that motive, others have a motive to fill the spot with the absolute best candidate within a price range of $______ to $______. Unions seek to insulate their members from having to compete on any grounds with others who could fill that job and do it better and/or cheaper.



Unions have a motive to retain all member teachers, good, bad or terrible, doing all they can to prevent even seriously unfit teachers from being ultimately forced out of the profession. How is that good for students that unfit teachers would be so strongly defended and kept in the profession?

If they were fired they can state why in some states, but as a whole many don't say anything about the employee's dismissal to avoid law suits.

Again, churning teachers in order to keep prices low would be a very bad practice. As it is now, good teachers are hard to retain. The key to retain the best and the brightest is to make the field attractive. Hiring the lowest bidder will not do that at all. Teacher unions can not retain teachers in the state of MA with more than two unsatisfactory evaluations. So, what you are saying is based on a myth.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

You should come up with a link and a quotation of mine that supports your "awareness" of my comments. Use those lens wipes I mentioned yesterday before you do though.

I see you still don't realize how I got you to admit that the things you mentioned (the printing of people's addresses and phone #'s) have nothing to do with this story
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

I see you still don't realize how I got you to admit that the things you mentioned (the printing of people's addresses and phone #'s) have nothing to do with this story
Oh you poor dear. Is that what you really imagine you did? Of course it is. Of course it is.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Another "Nuh-uh"

Quelle surprise
Oh you poor dear. Another flaccid post from the WiFi hotspot from under the bridge. Quelle surprise.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

If they were fired they can state why in some states, but as a whole many don't say anything about the employee's dismissal to avoid law suits.

You're scrambling to save your previous inaccurate statement.

Again, churning teachers in order to keep prices low would be a very bad practice.

I never advocated "churning teachers." I said unions protect even bad teachers, and asked what good that does for our youth.

As it is now, good teachers are hard to retain. The key to retain the best and the brightest is to make the field attractive.

Bogus. If they were so hard to retain, there would be no need for a union to try to drive the wages up. The wages would rise naturally as a result of districts needing teachers. Your argument does not make sense as to what purpose a teacher's union would possibly serve. Here are the unemployment statistics: A-30. Unemployed persons by occupation and sex

Hiring the lowest bidder will not do that at all. Teacher unions can not retain teachers in the state of MA with more than two unsatisfactory evaluations. So, what you are saying is based on a myth.

First of all, what do you mean the union "cannot retain" teachers with 3+ bad evaluations? The union would kick them out at that point?

Also, more than two unsatisfactory evaluations is a minimum of three years of a potentially incompetent teacher teaching children. That factoid does not make anything I said a myth. If anything it supports what I said, which is that potentially bad teachers are protected, and this happens at the expense of their students.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Oh you poor dear.
Enough of yer "oh you poor dear" routine okay Great King Rat.
Another flaccid post
Exactly where are you coming from and going to with calling posts "flaccid"?
from the WiFi hotspot from under the bridge. Quelle surprise.
And then there's the "WiFi hotspot from under the bridge" meme.
From which right-wing hotspot did you pick that up?

As for Unions and how they've bettered all of the lives of Americans, when will you be giving up yer weekends off, 40-hour weeks,
paid vacations, safety regs and protection against sexual harassment of the boss?

How about time off for babies to both female and male workers--I assume yer a "Family Values" kind of a guy.

And I'm quite sure you long for the days of Monopolies and Trusts before the Great Progress--ive Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt--oh for the many reasons he's on Mount Rushmore .
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

You're scrambling to save your previous inaccurate statement.



I never advocated "churning teachers." I said unions protect even bad teachers, and asked what good that does for our youth.



Bogus. If they were so hard to retain, there would be no need for a union to try to drive the wages up. The wages would rise naturally as a result of districts needing teachers. Your argument does not make sense as to what purpose a teacher's union would possibly serve. Here are the unemployment statistics: A-30. Unemployed persons by occupation and sex



First of all, what do you mean the union "cannot retain" teachers with 3+ bad evaluations? The union would kick them out at that point?

Also, more than two unsatisfactory evaluations is a minimum of three years of a potentially incompetent teacher teaching children. That factoid does not make anything I said a myth. If anything it supports what I said, which is that potentially bad teachers are protected, and this happens at the expense of their students.

And I said that is a myth. Did you not read that part of my post? You are dismissed if you get more than two unsatisfactory evaluations. Test scores make it easy to give an unsatisfactory rating even if you are a good teacher. Short sighted people like you have no clue how dangerous such a metric is because it basically depends on what kind of students you get. It is more likely for teachers in inner city schools to be dismissed due to test scores. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. That in itself makes the profession less attractive. And my argument is NOT bogus. Nearly half of teachers leave the profession after 5 years. Inner city teachers are much harder to retain. Wages don't go up because there is a glut of workers but that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean the best and the brightest are waiting to teach.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

You're scrambling to save your previous inaccurate statement.
Not only that but avoiding admitting that her understanding of some of the "facts" she posts are less than accurate too. It's a theme apparently.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

As for Unions and how they've bettered all of the lives of Americans, when will you be giving up yer weekends off, 40-hour weeks,
paid vacations, safety regs and protection against sexual harassment of the boss?

I guess when the FLSA is overturned. It's not like unions are the only things keeping employment laws on the books.

And I'm quite sure you long for the days of Monopolies and Trusts before the Great Progress--ive Republican President Theodore Roosevelt--oh for the many reasons he's on Mount Rushmore .

I'm glad you brought up monopolies. Like monopolies, unions are also vehemently anti-competition and seek at all times to drive up the price of the thing they deal. In fact, economists acknowledge that unions are enabled to have monopoly power.

"According to Harvard economists Richard Freeman and James Medoff, who look favorably on unions, “Most, if not all, unions have monopoly power, which they can use to raise wages above competitive levels” (1984, p. 6). Unions’ power to fix high prices for their members’ labor rests on legal privileges and immunities that they get from government, both by statute and by nonenforcement of other laws. The purpose of these legal privileges is to restrict others from working for lower wages."

"Labor unions cannot prosper in a competitive environment. Like other successful cartels, they depend on government patronage and protection. Worker cartels grew in surges during the two world wars and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Federal laws—the Railway Act of 1926 (amended in 1934), the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the Walsh-Healy Act of 1936, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, various war labor boards, and the Kennedy administration’s encouragement of public-sector unionism in 1962—all added to unions’ monopoly power."​

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

Enough of yer "oh you poor dear" routine okay Great King Rat.

Exactly where are you coming from and going to with calling posts "flaccid"?

And then there's the "WiFi hotspot from under the bridge" meme.
From which right-wing hotspot did you pick that up?

As for Unions and how they've bettered all of the lives of Americans, when will you be giving up yer weekends off, 40-hour weeks,
paid vacations, safety regs and protection against sexual harassment of the boss?

How about time off for babies to both female and male workers--I assume yer a "Family Values" kind of a guy.

And I'm quite sure you long for the days of Monopolies and Trusts before the Great Progress--ive Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt--oh for the many reasons he's on Mount Rushmore .
Oh you poor dear! You were so concerned about the flaccid nature of Sangha's "contributions" that you have arrived a second time to fluff some more? Hardly requires me to quelle surprise then, owing to your shared berth and WiFi signal from underneath the bridge now is it? Poor dear.
 
While I agree with many of those sentiments, let's not lump ALL unions together with the most obvious and historically documented ones that deserve derision and serious dismantling. I saw the Teamsters were mentioned earlier in the thread. Given their history, your description certainly is fitting with regard to them IMO.
There might be good unions, certainly, but it would likely be the smaller ones. While Unions complain about "Big Business" it is the Unions who are really Big Business. If other businesses behaved in the same way big unions do they'd be charged under antitrust laws, as well as others, rather than getting any public sympathy.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Private companies can't disclose why a person was dismissed. Your last part about competing in terms of wages and/or job performance is nonsense. The motive is to fill a spot with the cheapest price available. Churning and burning teachers is detrimental to any school system. The motive should be to retain good teachers not chase them away.


what the law says you can do, and what is actually done are two different things.....

i can call the hr department of a potential employee and get he basics...date of hire, date of separation, etc

if as a manager you stop there, you ought to fired yourself

i have had a lot of success talking to immediate supervisors over the years

and usually, it is a one question response i am looking for....

"would you hire that person again?"

almost all of them give me a yes or no.....
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

what the law says you can do, and what is actually done are two different things.....

i can call the hr department of a potential employee and get he basics...date of hire, date of separation, etc

if as a manager you stop there, you ought to fired yourself

i have had a lot of success talking to immediate supervisors over the years

and usually, it is a one question response i am looking for....

"would you hire that person again?"

almost all of them give me a yes or no.....

As a manager I've had many of those same types of discussions about former employees myself. I'm limited on what I can say as the reason for the separation but people can ask me questions that I am able to answer such as the one you mention. I can not maliciously lie about a former employee but can give a host of information anyway.
 
While I agree with many of those sentiments, let's not lump ALL unions together with the most obvious and historically documented ones that deserve derision and serious dismantling. I saw the Teamsters were mentioned earlier in the thread. Given their history, your description certainly is fitting with regard to them IMO.

To your point, lumping all unions together as the same is not a good thing. That said, the teamsters have quite a history with the AFL-CIO and while they may currently not be affiliated with the teamsters there is quite a long working relationship going all the way back to pre Hoffa days. The AFL-CIO has quite a list of affiliations as well, which have throughout the 20th century been with the teamsters. Guilt by association? Yes - some of it. Tactics I saw used in the mid 1980's were definitely teamster strong arm related.

List of unions affiliated with the AFL

International Brotherhood of Teamsters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Moderator's Warning:
Trying to hide flames behind witty comments doesn't make it any less flaming. Some action has been taken and more will be done if people don't want to refrain from baiting/flaming
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers

1. Funding elections can influence his other criteria.
2. He provided no information whatsoever.


Again, since his claim was purely hot air with zero substantiation an informed rebuttal, even if not direct and proportional, is sufficient to debunk his claim. Generally speaking, they never bring any research or citations, they just make it up as they go. Give the proliferation such an easy approach permits, we can't spend an inordinate amount of time doing their research for them in order to prove them wrong... otherwise they would win just by sheer numbers (it is easier to make things up than to 'prove' them). So a wedge will suffice, given their inability -- and typically subsequent in-your-face refusal -- to provide any documentation whatsoever. A house built of cards does not require complete demolition; simply removing a key item or two will accomplish the same task.

As the old saying goes, "a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on". The purveyors of falsehood, or opinion-as-fact, are likely well aware of that and use it to their advantage.

Nevermind.
 
Last edited:
‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

Right, your proof positive is Texas. It is illegal for teachers to collectively bargain with a union and has been that way for years. There school system can compete at the top internationally while union loving schools like MA score at the very bottom. Union loving MA bad for students. Union hating Texas good for students- Sarcasm over

Are you actually suggesting it is UNIONS that make the education system in those states better???? How about we go with property tax for $500 Alex. Or the burden on the education system? You just highlighted one of the major issues why most people are ignorant when it comes to education: attributing a single problem as the cause for an issue, or in your case a single solution for the success.

Did I say it was the only problem? No. You seem to be saying that the unions are making the education system better. They aren't. One word: tenure. Something that protects bad teachers from being fired. How is that ok?

http://www.teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm

Just take a read about tenure. Like I said...it is a travesty. And it isn't so much that all teachers in a union are bad. It is that the union doesn't exist for education. It doesn't exist to help kids. It exists to protect teachers. And it has now turned to protecting BAD teachers.

I would be ok if unions policed themselves and removed bad teachers, but they do not. Not even close.
 
Re: ‘Pressure tactics’: Unions publishing names of nonunion workers[W:702:1041]

[...] One word: tenure. [...]
Outlawing tenure would not make any measurable difference, it is merely a wedge issue to disempower unions and get the corporatist right one step closer to their goal -- the complete and total elimination of unions. If you were to outlaw tenure, they would suddenly 'expose' yet another issue that is suddenly a 'travesty' in the teachers union which is destroying the education of 'our children' :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom