UAW strikers are liars, the way all union strikers are liars

[Neomalthusian]

Virtually every bit of information about the UAW strike mentions a demand for wage increases. The strike is immediately following negotiations that stalled because of monetary terms. This makes their strike an economic strike. Everything about what they're demanding, and the timing of their strike, says this is an economic strike.

"Economic strikers" are those employees who strike in order to obtain some economic concession from the employer such as higher wages, shorter hours, or improved working conditions.

But the union pretends it's not an economic strike, i.e. they allege that they are not striking for higher wages, benefits, or other things being asked for in collective bargaining. They simply allege that an unfair labor practice was committed and that that's why they're on strike. This is a bald-faced lie, but nothing is done about it, because our country's labor laws are not enforced when it comes to union behavior.

A law needs to be passed that says that, when a union conducts a ULP strike, collective bargaining negotiations must pause until a labor board determines whether or not the employer in fact committed an unfair labor practice and provides direction/recommendation to the parties for resuming negotiations. Otherwise, unions will continue to be permitted to violate labor laws and regulations pertaining to strikes, by simply lying their asses off about the basis of their strike.

 

[Visbek]

Virtually every bit of information about the UAW strike mentions a demand for wage increases.....

Wow. So few words, so many errors.

The UAW is very clear that they're striking over wages and other reasons. Every single news article talks about how they are upset over GM returning to profitability ($8 billion this year) and closing US factories, while the unions made numerous concessions after the bankruptcy. And of course, wages are at the top of their list of demands:

Fair Wages
Affordable Healthcare
Our Share of Profits
Job Security
A Defined Path to Permanent Seniority for Temps
Auto Workers Go on Strike After Years of Tirelessly Helping General Motors Reach Record-Level Profits | UAW

US labor laws already allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine if a strike is legal.

Economic strikes by private sector employees are legal, and there's no reason that should change. The primary legal difference between an economic and fairness strike is that in an economic strike, the company has the legal right to fire and replace strikers.

Strikes are not binary -- exclusively economic or exclusively ULP. They can be both.

Your link, by the way, is from a 6 year old labor activist site. It's not some sort of Top Sekrit UAW meeting notes where a bunch of cigar-smoking union reps cackle evilly about pretending to be a ULP strike. I'm also quite certain the UAW has its own legal team, and are not reading rando union activist organization sites for advice on how to deal with the NLRB.

It's pointless for a union to lie about its purpose, because they have to negotiate with management and answer to the NLRB, and are under intense scrutiny by national news media.

In other words, spare us your anti-union nonsense. Even if you disagree with them, there is no question the UAW has the right to strike, and is transparent about its reasons for doing so.

 

[Grand Mal]

Virtually every bit of information about the UAW strike mentions a demand for wage increases. The strike is immediately following negotiations that stalled because of monetary terms. This makes their strike an economic strike. Everything about what they're demanding, and the timing of their strike, says this is an economic strike.



But the union pretends it's not an economic strike, i.e. they allege that they are not striking for higher wages, benefits, or other things being asked for in collective bargaining. They simply allege that an unfair labor practice was committed and that that's why they're on strike. This is a bald-faced lie, but nothing is done about it, because our country's labor laws are not enforced when it comes to union behavior.

A law needs to be passed that says that, when a union conducts a ULP strike, collective bargaining negotiations must pause until a labor board determines whether or not the employer in fact committed an unfair labor practice and provides direction/recommendation to the parties for resuming negotiations. Otherwise, unions will continue to be permitted to violate labor laws and regulations pertaining to strikes, by simply lying their asses off about the basis of their strike.

So fringin' what? They don't owe you any explanations. If their contract is expired and they vote to strike they have the right whether you like it or not. Who's gonna decide whether there's unfair labour practice or not, you?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Wow. So few words, so many errors.

The UAW is very clear that they're striking over wages and other reasons. Every single news article talks about how they are upset over GM returning to profitability ($8 billion this year) and closing US factories, while the unions made numerous concessions after the bankruptcy. And of course, wages are at the top of their list of demands:

Fair Wages
Affordable Healthcare
Our Share of Profits
Job Security
A Defined Path to Permanent Seniority for Temps
Auto Workers Go on Strike After Years of Tirelessly Helping General Motors Reach Record-Level Profits | UAW

US labor laws already allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine if a strike is legal.

Economic strikes by private sector employees are legal, and there's no reason that should change. The primary legal difference between an economic and fairness strike is that in an economic strike, the company has the legal right to fire and replace strikers.

Strikes are not binary -- exclusively economic or exclusively ULP. They can be both.

Your link, by the way, is from a 6 year old labor activist site. It's not some sort of Top Sekrit UAW meeting notes where a bunch of cigar-smoking union reps cackle evilly about pretending to be a ULP strike. I'm also quite certain the UAW has its own legal team, and are not reading rando union activist organization sites for advice on how to deal with the NLRB.

It's pointless for a union to lie about its purpose, because they have to negotiate with management and answer to the NLRB, and are under intense scrutiny by national news media.

In other words, spare us your anti-union nonsense. Even if you disagree with them, there is no question the UAW has the right to strike, and is transparent about its reasons for doing so.

So fringin' what? They don't owe you any explanations. If their contract is expired and they vote to strike they have the right whether you like it or not. Who's gonna decide whether there's unfair labour practice or not, you?

I believe the difference between an economic strike and a labor practice strike is the ability of the company to bring in replacement workers.

In an economic strike they can, in a labor practice strike they can not (Going by memory do not quote me on it)

 

[Visbek]

I believe the difference between an economic strike and a labor practice strike is the ability of the company to bring in replacement workers.

In an economic strike they can, in a labor practice strike they can not (Going by memory do not quote me on it)

H'm, I thought I included that in my post. I guess it got taken out during the editing process

That said, I don't think it matters in this case. GM is not going to fire a bunch of union leaders, or sack thousands of rank-and-file workers, because of this strike.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Wow. So few words, so many errors.

The UAW is very clear that they're striking over wages and other reasons. Every single news article talks about how they are upset over GM returning to profitability ($8 billion this year) and closing US factories, while the unions made numerous concessions after the bankruptcy. And of course, wages are at the top of their list of demands:

Fair Wages
Affordable Healthcare
Our Share of Profits
Job Security
A Defined Path to Permanent Seniority for Temps
Auto Workers Go on Strike After Years of Tirelessly Helping General Motors Reach Record-Level Profits | UAW

US labor laws already allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine if a strike is legal.

Economic strikes by private sector employees are legal, and there's no reason that should change. The primary legal difference between an economic and fairness strike is that in an economic strike, the company has the legal right to fire and replace strikers.

Strikes are not binary -- exclusively economic or exclusively ULP. They can be both.

Your link, by the way, is from a 6 year old labor activist site. It's not some sort of Top Sekrit UAW meeting notes where a bunch of cigar-smoking union reps cackle evilly about pretending to be a ULP strike. I'm also quite certain the UAW has its own legal team, and are not reading rando union activist organization sites for advice on how to deal with the NLRB.

It's pointless for a union to lie about its purpose, because they have to negotiate with management and answer to the NLRB, and are under intense scrutiny by national news media.

In other words, spare us your anti-union nonsense. Even if you disagree with them, there is no question the UAW has the right to strike, and is transparent about its reasons for doing so.

H'm, I thought I included that in my post. I guess it got taken out during the editing process

That said, I don't think it matters in this case. GM is not going to fire a bunch of union leaders, or sack thousands of rank-and-file workers, because of this strike.

missed that part

 

[Neomalthusian]

Wow. So few words, so many errors.

The UAW is very clear that they're striking over wages and other reasons. Every single news article talks about how they are upset over GM returning to profitability ($8 billion this year) and closing US factories, while the unions made numerous concessions after the bankruptcy. And of course, wages are at the top of their list of demands:

Fair Wages
Affordable Healthcare
Our Share of Profits
Job Security
A Defined Path to Permanent Seniority for Temps
Auto Workers Go on Strike After Years of Tirelessly Helping General Motors Reach Record-Level Profits | UAW

US labor laws already allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine if a strike is legal.

Economic strikes by private sector employees are legal, and there's no reason that should change. The primary legal difference between an economic and fairness strike is that in an economic strike, the company has the legal right to fire and replace strikers.

Strikes are not binary -- exclusively economic or exclusively ULP. They can be both.

Your link, by the way, is from a 6 year old labor activist site. It's not some sort of Top Sekrit UAW meeting notes where a bunch of cigar-smoking union reps cackle evilly about pretending to be a ULP strike. I'm also quite certain the UAW has its own legal team, and are not reading rando union activist organization sites for advice on how to deal with the NLRB.

It's pointless for a union to lie about its purpose, because they have to negotiate with management and answer to the NLRB, and are under intense scrutiny by national news media.

In other words, spare us your anti-union nonsense. Even if you disagree with them, there is no question the UAW has the right to strike, and is transparent about its reasons for doing so.

It isn't anti-union and it's not nonsense. It is not at all whatsoever pointless for a union to lie about its purpose. It is extremely obvious that spurious allegations of ULPs are used to avoid being subject to what the labor regulations say about economic strikes.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I believe the difference between an economic strike and a labor practice strike is the ability of the company to bring in replacement workers.

In an economic strike they can, in a labor practice strike they can not (Going by memory do not quote me on it)

The employer can bring in replacements in either type of strike, but in an economic strike they can keep the replacements permanently if qualified and the strikers are not necessarily entitled to immediate reinstatement. That doesn't mean they're fired per se, but they can't walk into their old job and kick the new person out. But in a ULP strike they're entitled to immediate reinstatement the moment the union asks for an unconditional return to work.

It's not necessarily easy, by any means, to find permanent replacement workers in such short order (in the case of an actual economic strike). It could happen in a few cases here and there, but it's not easy to just swap out huge swaths of qualified and trained workers with permanent replacements. So even if they were honest about the economic basis of the strike, it's unlikely that very many, if any, would be permanently replaced. Nonetheless, they don't want to take any risk of it happening, so they just make up a frivolous unfair labor practice allegation and then go straight to striking over it, allowing them to skirt the law on this issue whenever they want, and there's no enforcement of the issue.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So fringin' what? They don't owe you any explanations. If their contract is expired and they vote to strike they have the right whether you like it or not.

I never said they have no legal right to strike. My comments concern the type of strike that is being conducted. What they're doing is conducting economic strikes but alleging they're ULP strikes, because they don't want to have to be subject to what labor laws say about economic strikes.

Who's gonna decide whether there's unfair labour practice or not, you?

A labor board, such as the NLRB or a state-level equivalent. And that determination should be made before any further negotiations can happen regarding wages, benefits, or other economic concessions. Because if it's truly a ULP strike, the allegation should be evaluated and decided on. But if the strikers are striking for more wages, then it should be recognized as what it is, which is an economic strike.

 

[gulfman]

If the teachers in Chicago go on strike you won't hear a peep from the liberals.If they do they should be replaced with replacement teachers.

 

[CaughtInThe]

welcome to capitalism.

 

[Grand Mal]

I never said they have no legal right to strike. My comments concern the type of strike that is being conducted. What they're doing is conducting economic strikes but alleging they're ULP strikes, because they don't want to have to be subject to what labor laws say about economic strikes.



A labor board, such as the NLRB or a state-level equivalent. And that determination should be made before any further negotiations can happen regarding wages, benefits, or other economic concessions. Because if it's truly a ULP strike, the allegation should be evaluated and decided on. But if the strikers are striking for more wages, then it should be recognized as what it is, which is an economic strike.

Keep the government out of it. Why do you think It's a matter the government needs to be involved in?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Keep the government out of it. Why do you think It's a matter the government needs to be involved in?

Because the government passed the NLRA, Taft Hartley, et al., staffs the NLRB, has a judicial branch that has decided countless cases involving labor, about two dozen other obvious reasons, and because unions basically couldn’t exist absent enabling government regulation.

Was that a serious question?

 

[Grand Mal]

Because the government passed the NLRA, Taft Hartley, et al., staffs the NLRB, has a judicial branch that has decided countless cases involving labor, about two dozen other obvious reasons, and because unions basically couldn’t exist absent enabling government regulation.

Was that a serious question?

Unions were formed in defiance of government. The only way the government has ever affected unions is negatively, unless the government was sucking up to voters. Unions exist where they exist because the government hasnt been extreme enough to outlaw them.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Unions were formed in defiance of government.

When, a gazillion years ago? Things have changed dramatically since then in that regard.

The only way the government has ever affected unions is negatively, unless the government was sucking up to voters. Unions exist where they exist because the government hasnt been extreme enough to outlaw them.

Um, okay, well anyway, we have labor regulations in this country that are supposed to be enforced by government. In the case of recognizing economic strikes as economic strikes, there's no enforcement. Unions can just slap a ULP claim on it so that they're not subject to aspects of the regulations they don't like.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Because the government passed the NLRA, Taft Hartley, et al., staffs the NLRB, has a judicial branch that has decided countless cases involving labor, about two dozen other obvious reasons, and because unions basically couldn’t exist absent enabling government regulation.

Was that a serious question?

Corporations like GM would not exist without government enabling regulations, from tax rules, to Patents and copy wright laws.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Corporations like GM would not exist without government enabling regulations, from tax rules, to Patents and copy wright laws.

Not really a comparable extrapolation of my point. Without antitrust regulations, the anti-competitive cartel tactics of the robber baron era would have allowed one or two monopolies to consume the entire American economy. So we passed regulations that prohibited anti-competitive cartel tactics and monopoly power, but then labor unions were successful at getting a carve-out from that regulation (Clayton). Their legality depends on being exempted from anti-trust laws. Further, labor laws and regulations have been needed, passed, upheld, and continually protected by the courts (referencing said regulations) for unions to have any power, thus their existence depends on those regulations. The argument "keep government out of collective bargaining" is as silly as saying "government keep your hands off my Medicare."

Circling back to the specific issue I brought up here, those aforementioned regulations that establish rules relative to what type of strike is being conducted were for a good purpose, which was to preserve collective bargaining. Even the side of those regulations that unions don't like was for a good purpose. If the rules of collective bargaining are set up such that either side has the other by the absolute nuts, then the bargaining power becomes so lop-sided that it ceases to be bargaining, rather it just becomes a charade in which one side can crush the other repeatedly. That's not sustainable and would lead to legislative changes to try to maintain some semblance of a balance of power.

If unions can strike and employers were prohibited from replacing the strikers (whether temporarily or permanently), then strikes would shutter companies or industries and unions would have the absolute nuts and thereby basically hold entire industries and frankly the entire American economy hostage to its demands. So that won't work. Employers need to be able to bring in replacements.

If employers could fire every union member the moment negotiations hit impasse/deadlock, then employers would have the absolute nuts and could basically kill unions dead in their tracks instantly. So that won't work either. There needs to be some degree of protection of strikers jobs for unions to have any leverage whatsoever.

The purpose of allowing employers to hire permanent replacement of economic strikers was to prevent strike power from getting out of hand and being used to extort theoretically unlimited monetary demands from employers. On the other side, the purpose of entitling ULP strikers to unconditional reinstatement is to prevent employers from intentionally committing unfair labor practices to create an excuse to permanently replace swaths of union workers.

Practically speaking, it's pretty difficult to find qualified permanent replacements for very many workers on such immediate notice. But in addition to the practical difficulties to go gang-busters finding permanent replacements, the NLRB has made it more difficult legally to even attempt to do so. The employer has to somehow figure out a way to convincingly demonstrate that the permanent replacement was with "pure motive" and not retaliatory or punitive in nature. How one proves that is anyone's guess.

But nonetheless, unions continue to make up ULP allegations as the basis for striking so that there is zero risk of permanent replacement. Notice how the union isn't required to demonstrate that their motives for striking over a ULP are "pure" rather than feigned when the real motive is economic. That's a double standard and we're not upholding the intent of these regulations. We should either enforce these regulations and their intent or we should change the law and have that debate about how it should be changed.

 

[Visbek]

It isn't anti-union and it's not nonsense.

"I'm not anti-union, I just think that all unions are a bunch of big fat liars, who shouldn't strike without government approval first."

Hmmmmmm.

It is not at all whatsoever pointless for a union to lie about its purpose. It is extremely obvious that spurious allegations of ULPs are used to avoid being subject to what the labor regulations say about economic strikes.

And again, it is already the job of the NLRB to make sure that unions are accurate in representing their purposes in striking.

Actually, I have a better solution: Let's extend all the protections for ULP strikes to all types of private-sector strikes. Problem Solved.

 

[Visbek]

If unions can strike and employers were prohibited from replacing the strikers (whether temporarily or permanently), then strikes would shutter companies or industries and unions would have the absolute nuts and thereby basically hold entire industries and frankly the entire American economy hostage to its demands. So that won't work. Employers need to be able to bring in replacements.

I see no reason to grant that "need." Unions are not striking at the drop of a hat just because they can get some protections by claiming it's a ULP strike.

In case you missed it, the economic status of the working class has been stagnant, if not declining, since the 1970s. Unions are one of the few checks on corporate power, which has only grown over time. I see little benefit to making corporations stronger at the expense of unions.

And of course, I'm sure it would be very easy to find a laundry list of lies and "lies" told by companies that are on the receiving end of strikes. Your position seems a tad... selective, no?

 

[Neomalthusian]

"I'm not anti-union, I just think that all unions are a bunch of big fat liars, who shouldn't strike without government approval first."

Labor laws were written that specifically differentiated between types of strikes. There must have been reasons for that, and to this day those regulations are on the books. Who or what upholds government regulations, if not government?

And again, it is already the job of the NLRB to make sure that unions are accurate in representing their purposes in striking.

It certainly should be.

Actually, I have a better solution: Let's extend all the protections for ULP strikes to all types of private-sector strikes. Problem Solved.

That is one possible solution to the problem, sure. I might not personally agree with that solution, but at least in that case we'd be following our own laws and regulations. Right now, we're not. The regulations differentiate between the type of strike and establish different rules based on the type of strike, and because unions like the rules associated with ULP strikes, they can (and do) just say all their strikes are actually ULP strikes, and there's no accountability for that.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I see no reason to grant that "need." Unions are not striking at the drop of a hat just because they can get some protections by claiming it's a ULP strike.

They're striking for more money, which makes the strike economic, but they claim it's a ULP strike so that they aren't subject to the rules concerning economic strikes.

In case you missed it, the economic status of the working class has been stagnant, if not declining, since the 1970s. Unions are one of the few checks on corporate power, which has only grown over time. I see little benefit to making corporations stronger at the expense of unions.

The plight of the middle class and whatnot is beside the point. The regulations concerning economic strikes are already on the books. All it would take to allow employers to start permanently replacing union workers striking over collective bargaining demands is for a somewhat less labor-sympathetic NLRB and other labor regulators to simply start enforcing our own existing laws and refuse to recognize clearly economic strikes as if they were ULP strikes. If you think economic strikers shouldn't be able to be permanently replaced, you should be clamoring for our labor laws to be changed.

And of course, I'm sure it would be very easy to find a laundry list of lies and "lies" told by companies that are on the receiving end of strikes. Your position seems a tad... selective, no?

Extremely selective, because I've seen this particular lie over and over again. I'm not just irritated with lying generally, I'm specifically irritated that a basic lie can consistently allow an organization to shirk clear and explicit laws and regulations.

For example, the NLRA says employers can't fire union members or striking workers, and most CBAs say termination must be for cause. Well imagine if employers frustrated with bargaining deadlock fired all the union members and simply alleged that each one of them was for cause. That claim is obviously totally bogus, and the employer would know it and have no intention of dragging that lie through court to try to prove it, but just used that little stunt as a way to wield more bargaining power. That obviously wouldn't fly, ever.
But that's basically the equivalent of what unions are doing when it comes to strikes. They want to strike for economic reasons without being subject to the regulations concerning economic strikes. So they lie about the motive, and no one who's supposed to be enforcing our labor regulations gives a ****.

 

[Rogue Valley]

A law needs to be passed that says that, when a union conducts a ULP strike, collective bargaining negotiations must pause until a labor board determines whether or not the employer in fact committed an unfair labor practice and provides direction/recommendation to the parties for resuming negotiations. Otherwise, unions will continue to be permitted to violate labor laws and regulations pertaining to strikes, by simply lying their asses off about the basis of their strike.

Your anti-Union agenda is well known here at DP. You're a corporatist, plain and simple.

 

[Visbek]

Labor laws were written that specifically differentiated between types of strikes. There must have been reasons for that, and to this day those regulations are on the books.

Yeah, thing is? Conditions change over time, and sometimes laws aren't written optimally in the first place. If we are talking about the possibility of changing the law, it helps to say a little more than "we wrote the law for a reason."

For example, labor unions in the US were significantly more powerful in the 1950s than they are today. Corporations are also significantly wealthier and more powerful than in the 50s. Thus, we can make a good case that "labor laws ought to be changed to balance out the position of unions."

Or, we can just say that the law never made sense in the first place, and employees shouldn't risk getting fired because they went on strike. Since most unions already know to position themselves as holding a ULP strike

That is one possible solution to the problem, sure. I might not personally agree with that solution, but at least in that case we'd be following our own laws and regulations. Right now, we're not.

OK then. Do you also hold companies accountable when they bend, violate or lie about labor laws? Do you proclaim "all companies are liars" when they claim that a strike is an economic strike, when it's really a ULP strike? After all, companies do that with a lot of strikes; are you saying that no union ever strikes based on unfair labor practices?

 

[Cougarbear]

Wow. So few words, so many errors.

The UAW is very clear that they're striking over wages and other reasons. Every single news article talks about how they are upset over GM returning to profitability ($8 billion this year) and closing US factories, while the unions made numerous concessions after the bankruptcy. And of course, wages are at the top of their list of demands:

Fair Wages
Affordable Healthcare
Our Share of Profits
Job Security
A Defined Path to Permanent Seniority for Temps
Auto Workers Go on Strike After Years of Tirelessly Helping General Motors Reach Record-Level Profits | UAW

US labor laws already allow the National Labor Relations Board to determine if a strike is legal.

Economic strikes by private sector employees are legal, and there's no reason that should change. The primary legal difference between an economic and fairness strike is that in an economic strike, the company has the legal right to fire and replace strikers.

Strikes are not binary -- exclusively economic or exclusively ULP. They can be both.

Your link, by the way, is from a 6 year old labor activist site. It's not some sort of Top Sekrit UAW meeting notes where a bunch of cigar-smoking union reps cackle evilly about pretending to be a ULP strike. I'm also quite certain the UAW has its own legal team, and are not reading rando union activist organization sites for advice on how to deal with the NLRB.

It's pointless for a union to lie about its purpose, because they have to negotiate with management and answer to the NLRB, and are under intense scrutiny by national news media.

In other words, spare us your anti-union nonsense. Even if you disagree with them, there is no question the UAW has the right to strike, and is transparent about its reasons for doing so.

Unions are under scrutiny from the National Media? Really? The Democrat Media? LOL! Not even close. The media has an always supports strikes. It's good for them.
Unions have a place as long as they negotiate in good faith for the right reasons. Trump, I'm sure, wants car makers to stay open and stay in the U.S. That is very clear. But, in the end, companies have to do what's best for them to stay in business and profit for their shareholders, the true owners of the corporations.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Your anti-Union agenda is well known here at DP. You're a corporatist, plain and simple.

I'm pointing out a simple issue of non-enforcement of our existing labor regulations. Attacking me as a corporatist or being anti-union is an ad hominem that doesn't even attempt to address my argument on its merits. Do you have any basis of disputing what I'm saying? Want examples/evidence of what I'm saying? I've got oodles. Veracare and SEIU. UC Doctors and AFSCME. El Super (grocer) and UFCW. SIEU 521 and Stanislaus County. SEIU 1199 and Alaris Health. SEIU 1199 and Groden Center. Teamsters 174 and CalPortland. Google any of these examples. I could go on for hours listing them. They are truly countless. All of these are examples of union workers striking immediately upon the exhaustion of bargaining for a new contract that does not satisfy their monetary demands. Yet they call the strike a ULP strike.

Here's maybe one of the best examples, just because of how audaciously honest the union was in stating its disingenuous motives: Minnesota Nurses Association and Twin City Hospitals. From the union's own website: "We are calling for a ULP (unfair labor practices) strike so we cannot be replaced and will return to our original positions."