• 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!

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

UAW and its supporters will always act like they've made huge sacrifices and are so downtrodden.

Kind of like how Corporations act like they actually care about their workers? Give me a freaking break... if it wasn't for Government regulations and labor protections, we'd still be in the 19th Century. Corporations wouldn't pay one cent beyond the bare minimum they had to... not for wages, not for health and safety, not for environmental protection - you know that as much as I do.
 
Are you referring to the "old GM" or the new Government Motors? I don't have a dog in this fight. I just figured that the union workers already got their payday when the bondholders got shafted. They have already got 11.2 billion of our tax dollars and they are still not happy. I don't get it.

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout - Reuters

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout

Do you know anything about the UAW and how much their members gave back to GM and the other auto co. in the last 10 years?
it is a lot more then a lot of people even know about.
some parts of their health care , two or three pay scales, one for new hires, another for people who have been there for a few years and one for people that have been there a long time from what I remember these were to be only for a short time and over time they were to be phased out
I don't know what happened but there are UAW workers that should be paid a lot more then they are
I am sure many of you out here never worked in an auto plant
I remember years ago people saying over paid under worked auto workers well I know they never even spent a few hours working in the plant I did
I put in almost 40 years there and have seen hundreds of people come in thinking that they were going to get paid well and not have to work too hard well by lunch time the day they started they walked out
I have heard many of them say they were not going to work like a slave no matter how much the Co. paid them
no matter what this strike is about the people who have worked for GM for many years should get back what they gave up years ago and get a decent raise
Have a nice day
 
Kind of like how Corporations act like they actually care about their workers? Give me a freaking break...

This isn't even related to what I said. UAW and all other unions will always pretend the workers are so downtrodden and abused by employers. The entire existence of unions and the ideological support for them depends on this sense of injustice from employers.

Whether corporations "care about their workers" or not is as arguable as whether employees "care about their company" or not. If you want to be a cynic, you could argue that corporations don't actually care one bit about any of their workers, and I could just as easily argue that workers don't actually care one bit about their employers. They're all self-interested egoists with zero actual concern for anyone but themselves.

The reality is that many workers do actually care about the wellbeing of their company because it's in their best interests if their company does well, and that employers do actually care to a significant degree about the wellbeing of their employees because it's in their strategic interests that their employees be happy and fulfilled at work.

if it wasn't for Government regulations and labor protections, we'd still be in the 19th Century.

Well I'm not speaking out against government labor regulations. In fact I'd rather that, in lieu of unionism, more regulation of labor take place.

Corporations wouldn't pay one cent beyond the bare minimum they had to... not for wages, not for health and safety, not for environmental protection - you know that as much as I do.

Actually you think you know this, but I know otherwise. Corporations very often feel they "have to" pay well beyond the minimum even though no government or other entity is mandating or coercing them to do it. If corporations wanted to pay the bare minimum for legal representation, they'd hire people right out of third tier law schools. If they wanted to pay the bare minimum for tech security, they'd mostly do without tech security altogether. If they wanted to pay the bare minimum local taxes, they wouldn't set up shop in cities (but they constantly set up shop in cities). They routinely do these things that have them paying well beyond the bare minimum necessary for all sorts of things, including labor, because it's in their strategic business interests to do so. In some areas they find it in their interests to try to minimize cost/expenditure, but in other cases they pay for the best they can get.

But we digress. The point of this thread is a labor regulation that is chronically and altogether unenforced.
 
This isn't even related to what I said. UAW and all other unions will always pretend the workers are so downtrodden and abused by employers. The entire existence of unions and the ideological support for them depends on this sense of injustice from employers.

Whether corporations "care about their workers" or not is as arguable as whether employees "care about their company" or not. If you want to be a cynic, you could argue that corporations don't actually care one bit about any of their workers, and I could just as easily argue that workers don't actually care one bit about their employers. They're all self-interested egoists with zero actual concern for anyone but themselves.

The reality is that many workers do actually care about the wellbeing of their company because it's in their best interests if their company does well, and that employers do actually care to a significant degree about the wellbeing of their employees because it's in their strategic interests that their employees be happy and fulfilled at work.



Well I'm not speaking out against government labor regulations. In fact I'd rather that, in lieu of unionism, more regulation of labor take place.



Actually you think you know this, but I know otherwise. Corporations very often feel they "have to" pay well beyond the minimum even though no government or other entity is mandating or coercing them to do it. If corporations wanted to pay the bare minimum for legal representation, they'd hire people right out of third tier law schools. If they wanted to pay the bare minimum for tech security, they'd mostly do without tech security altogether. If they wanted to pay the bare minimum local taxes, they wouldn't set up shop in cities (but they constantly set up shop in cities). They routinely do these things that have them paying well beyond the bare minimum necessary for all sorts of things, including labor, because it's in their strategic business interests to do so. In some areas they find it in their interests to try to minimize cost/expenditure, but in other cases they pay for the best they can get.

But we digress. The point of this thread is a labor regulation that is chronically and altogether unenforced.

I'm not saying either the Unions or the Corporations are blameless... both sides are always looking for the best deal for themselves. Let the NLRB sort it out.
 
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.

The first ting you need to know is that an unfair labor practice strike means back pay. The rest will take too long to explain now; I'll get to it later.
 
The only chance labor has to negociate with capital is to organize.

We need more unions not less
 
Are you referring to the "old GM" or the new Government Motors? I don't have a dog in this fight. I just figured that the union workers already got their payday when the bondholders got shafted. They have already got 11.2 billion of our tax dollars and they are still not happy. I don't get it.

U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout - Reuters
well again the UAW workers did take a big hit when GM almost went down
fact is the auto Companies owed the retirees a lot of money ( most people think the auto co's pay the full cost of the UAW workers retirement , well they don't, ( indirectly it comes out of the money the workers would have earned ) IF they get say a 5 cent COLA raise some of that is diverted to their retirement fund and health care so they would have earned 5 cents more an hour but they pay part of that for their retirement and healthcare, I figured it out years ago after my first 30 years instead of having that money in my hands I was paying well over 8 dollars an hour into my retirement and health care )
Have a nice evening
 
UAW and its supporters will always act like they've made huge sacrifices and are so downtrodden. In fact, literally every labor union that has ever existed displays these pretenses. It is as predictable as a Democrat saying a Republican is wrong, or vice versa. You will hear it 100% of the time. The entire purpose of their existence is to allege such things.

Beyond that, what would be necessary is to show in objective terms, with verifiable data, that GM compensation is below average across its industry relative to cost of living where these workers live.

But that's not even the point. The point is there is federal law that has rules for what can be done relative to what type of strike is being conducted. Unions virtually always pretend the basis of their strike is not economic, even when it is, because they don't like what the rules say about economic strikes.



Without comparative data, this is your random personal opinion.



Not relevant.
You have never worked in an auto plant
I can tell because over the years ( almost 40 years for myself ) I was a UAW member and we DID give back a lot of things we never got back
Have a nice night
 
They feel compelled to do so. It's likely the workers would not authorize a strike if it were understood that it was economic in nature, because none of the workers want to take any risk that they could be permanently replaced while on strike. Unlikely as it might be that they would be, they want zero risk, therefore the union has to allege an unfair labor practice of some kind and pretend that's the reason.

Strikes are usually about economic conditions and workplace conditions duh
 
You have never worked in an auto plant
I can tell because over the years ( almost 40 years for myself ) I was a UAW member and we DID give back a lot of things we never got back

If GM isn’t significantly underpaying the industry for comparable jobs/duties (factoring in COL), there’s no argument about what’s fair or not.

Strikes are usually about economic conditions and workplace conditions duh

What they’re about, and what unions allege they’re about, are different things. I’ve explained this repeatedly throughout this thread. That’s the entire thread topic.
 
If GM isn’t significantly underpaying the industry for comparable jobs/duties (factoring in COL), there’s no argument about what’s fair or not.



What they’re about, and what unions allege they’re about, are different things. I’ve explained this repeatedly throughout this thread. That’s the entire thread topic.
never said they were
I made the point that the people of the UAW have given back a lot to help save GM, FORD and Chrysler
Fact is the UAW converted the money their workers paid into their retirement / health care funds these Auto Co's owed those funds into stock so the Auto co's would not be short on funds to keep operating.
they took paper ( stock ) and took on the job of saving those corps and in the end get their money back to fund the retirement / health care programs .
most people do not know how the auto workers retirement fund and healthcare fund are funded.
as I said before if and when the people of the UAW get a cola raise ( say of 5 cents an hour ) a good part of that raise is diverted to fund their retirement / health care,
this is money those people earned and they took and used to help save these corps. and did not get in their pay checks
Have a nice day
 
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.

Screw that. I don't want any government labor board telling me when I can strike.
 
If GM isn’t significantly underpaying the industry for comparable jobs/duties (factoring in COL), there’s no argument about what’s fair or not.



What they’re about, and what unions allege they’re about, are different things. I’ve explained this repeatedly throughout this thread. That’s the entire thread topic.

You were the one complaining about unions striking about these issues.
 
Screw that. I don't want any government labor board telling me when I can strike.

Sure you do. The government is the only thing that has any power to entitle you to your job back once you're done with your little protest. Unions need government at every step in their process. Government writes the rules and enforces them when it comes to labor and labor relations. Saying "I don't want no government telling me this or that" is like saying "government keep your hands off my Medicare."
 
You were the one complaining about unions striking about these issues.

No, I'm complaining about our government's refusal to enforce its own regulations when unions strike about these issues. The rule already exists and is clear, but it's made toothless and irrelevant by our refusal to enforce it.
 
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.

To be fair, both sides in labor disputes lie like a rug.

Human beings are notorious liars, including "kids."

When teachers in my city go on strike, they claim that they are striking for the students. Nonsense. They are striking for themselves.
 
To be fair, both sides in labor disputes lie like a rug.

Human beings are notorious liars, including "kids."

When teachers in my city go on strike, they claim that they are striking for the students. Nonsense. They are striking for themselves.

When teachers in my city go on strike, they claim that they are striking for the students. Nonsense. They are striking for themselves.

That is correct Parser

It's funny how its always about the "children" when trying to pass school district levies and increase teacher pay

But, as soon as the Teachers get/take time off(Which is numerous), they're out of there!
 
To be fair, both sides in labor disputes lie like a rug.

Human beings are notorious liars, including "kids."

When teachers in my city go on strike, they claim that they are striking for the students. Nonsense. They are striking for themselves.

Fights that are political in nature are always riddled with dishonesty and misleading if not false claims. I understand that, and yeah it's annoying.

But what I'm complaining about is not just the lying, it's the unwillingness to enforce a rule that we have, and as a result of that, we create an incentive for unions to routinely file false allegations against employers that they have 100% intention to drop. No union that is going on a ULP strike wants to actually go through the process of adjudicating their ULP claim and winning that case that the employer did or didn't commit an unfair labor practice. Because what would they gain if they did? The employer would have a finger wagged at it and it would be told "negotiate in good faith this time!" That's it. And back to the negotiating table they go, all the same. The ULP allegation that is introduced at the onset of a strike is a bald-faced ruse to avoid an explicit labor regulation. I have even seen examples where union officials come right out and say "we're calling this a ULP strike so that we can't be permanently replaced."

Further, the types of unfair labor practices that can be filed are impossibly broad and subjective. The most inane charge is "surface bargaining." It means one side is "merely going through the motions with no intention to actually reach agreement." Either party could constantly accuse the other of this all the time. It's basically a carte blanche allegation for unions to use as a basis for striking even when the motives are purely economic. "We don't like your offer, therefore you must not be genuinely wanting to reach agreement, therefore you have committed an unfair labor practice."

It's also extremely easy to allege "regressive bargaining" against either party literally any time. I have personally been involved in labor negotiations and was baited into making an offer that the union claimed it wanted, and when I made the offer it said it wanted, it went on ULP strike alleging regressive bargaining. Specifically, the employer side was offering one-time cash payments instead of base rate percentage wage increases. The union said "any one-time cash payment offer is a non-starter, we want percentage base wage increases only." The next offer was a percentage base wage increase, but they calculated that a prior one-time cash payment offer was more generous, and without telling me they felt the offer was regressive, they pocketed it and alleged a ULP when they went on strike.

It's not that these tactics or false allegations hurt my feelings or anything, unions are simply working within the system we've created for them and using the way it works to their advantage. The problem is our system is created with pitfalls and regulations we constantly fail and refuse to enforce, which causes the entire process to be extremely frustrating and wasteful of everyone's time. Being accused of unfair labor practices just because you haven't reached financial agreement is the sort of thing that makes employers absolutely hate labor unions and determined to crush them. If our processes worked more efficiently and our regulations were actually straightforwardly enforced and did not encourage blatant false allegations, the attitude employers have about unions and union workers might not always be quite as hostile as they tend to be now.
 
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.

An unfair labor practice cannot be filed for wages and benefits, so your premise is faulty. What's up is the suit is being filed most probably for not bargaining in good faith. The delaying tactics used by companies are designed to put stress on the bargaining unit and the fact that the union has been out this long only tells you how much GM is willing to invest in this contract. The company has backed down once with respect to canceling health benefits, but the UAW is in for the long hall and they've been there before. If it found that GM has committed an unfair labor practice - through trial - then they will receive all back pay from the date of the filing.
 
An unfair labor practice cannot be filed for wages and benefits, so your premise is faulty. What's up is the suit is being filed most probably for not bargaining in good faith.

Never claimed the ULP was filed for wages and benefits, so my premise isn't faulty. Your premise of my premise is faulty. Read the post immediately preceding yours.

The delaying tactics used by companies are designed to put stress on the bargaining unit and the fact that the union has been out this long only tells you how much GM is willing to invest in this contract. The company has backed down once with respect to canceling health benefits, but the UAW is in for the long hall and they've been there before. If it found that GM has committed an unfair labor practice - through trial - then they will receive all back pay from the date of the filing.

1) Never heard anything about canceling health benefits. What's that about?

2) It's extremely easy to allege unfair (e.g., surface or regressive) bargaining. A ULP is a procedural complaint. The timing of most ULP strikes is extremely suggestive that the ULPs are not real or sincere. They're a substitute excuse for going on what's in every way an economic strike by nature. Negotiations go on and on, offer, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, on and on this goes, until finally, one side rejects and submits their "last, best and final offer," which the other side rejects and submits their last, best and final offer, which the other side rejects, and then finally, after all that has happened and negotiations are deadlocked and the union isn't happy with the last best offer, only then are a parade of procedural complaint about unfair bargaining marched out. Highly unlikely.

The ULP allegations that only finally come out after deadlocked negotiations as a basis for going on strike serves on single disingenuous bad faith purpose, which is to send the following message to the employer: "Don't even think about permanent replacements, we've peppered you with 25 different unfair labor practice claims so that gives us all sorts of grounds to fight you on it should you attempt to hire a permanent replacement. Are the ULPs all petty and baseless? Sure, but the NLRB doesn't know that, and they'll look at each and every one, and all we need is for them to agree on one of our ULP allegations and you'll owe the job plus back-pay to the replaced workers and will have wasted so much time and money by then that it won't be remotely worth it to you."

This tactic is an absolute no brainer for unions, in fact unions have a strategic imperative to file spurious ULP claims in bad faith, because there's virtually no risk or penalty for doing so, only upside. The original intent of our regulations differentiating economic strikes from ULP ones is rendered moot by our procedural failures and refusal to enforce it. As a result, we don't just allow unions to file bad faith and spurious ULP claims, we give them a strategic imperative to do so. This guarantees that if unions don't get what they want, they'll pepper the employer with false allegations. It's really hard for an employer that is being attacked with made-up bad faith allegations to respect the organization that is engaging in that tactic. This perpetually frustrates negotiations and ensures unions will be despised by employers, which undermines the entire fundamental intent of the NLRA and associated labor laws, which is to promote harmonious relations between labor and management.
 
Last edited:
It's not that these tactics or false allegations hurt my feelings or anything, unions are simply working within the system we've created for them and using the way it works to their advantage....
Both sides abuse the system.

And yet, your rage is focused exclusively on the unions.

Hmmmmmm

P.S. No one gives a crap. The rule of law will not collapse because some unions claim that there are ULP issues. The idea that employers are an oppressed minority at the mercy of unions in 2019 is a bad joke. Like it or not, the law is not perfect, and is not going to change any time soon. Since the consequences are negligible, maybe you should give it a rest.
 
Both sides abuse the system.

And yet, your rage is focused exclusively on the unions.

Hmmmmmm

Even though "both-siderism" is not really a valid retort, I welcome you to explain how you think management abuses the system in a similar way as this.

The idea that employers are an oppressed minority at the mercy of unions

That's not what I'm saying, and if you actually read my last couple of posts that should be clear to you.

Since the consequences are negligible, maybe you should give it a rest.

I didn't say the overall consequences are negligible, I said the immediate negative consequences to unions for filing spurious ULPs are negligible, and in fact the consequences for filing spurious ULP accusations are actually positive. Procedurally, they're rewarded for lying. The overall long-term consequences are the continuous poisoning of labor-management relations. Is that good for unions, to constantly poison any hope of ever having half-way decent labor-management relations? Maybe in one small, short-term way, but not overall in the long term in my opinion. I think it's a double-edged sword that actually harms them over the long term.

If labor-management relations are extremely toxic, and workers buy what the union is saying about the conflict, it is arguably good for unions politically/ideologically in the immediate term, but the longer term risks are two-fold: 1) some workers eventually grow weary of the constant warring between their union and their employer and would just prefer some tranquility and status quo for a while, and start to grow frustrated at their union's war-mongering, and 2) the more deeply despised unions are by employers (as a result of the constant false accusations and bad faith tactics), the greater lengths they might go to to permanently undermine the union via restructuring, relocation, mergers and acquisitions, larger charitable donations to anti-union advocacy groups, and so on.

Some more radically left wing pro-labor types refuse to even consider this, because they have already made up their minds that pretty much 100% of employers are sadistic sociopaths who hate workers and want to enslave them. As a result of this radical anti-employer attitude, they have no desire for harmonious labor relations, they just want all-out war, even if it means mutually-assured destruction. If you believe someone is your sworn enemy who is a sadistic sociopath, you do not want to even try to have decent diplomatic relations or mutual respect, you just want that enemy defeated at any cost. Are you one of these types of people? Who thinks employers are all sadistic sociopaths and need to be defeated? I would hope not.

Bargaining will never be "fair" if our procedures essentially reward either side (or both, as you allege) for falsely accusing the other of unfairness.
 
Last edited:
Even though "both-siderism" is not really a valid retort, I welcome you to explain how you think management abuses the system in a similar way as this.
lol

Dude? You already proclaimed in this thread that you know employers will often contest ULP claims, even when they are legitimate. And if I actually have to list abuses by management when it comes to strikes, I'll be here all day. Don't even front.


I didn't say the overall consequences are negligible, I said the immediate consequences to unions for filing spurious ULPs are negligible.
I'm saying that the overall consequences are negligible. Reading is fundamental.


The overall long-term consequences are the continuous poisoning of labor-management relations.
What a crock! Tensions between labor and management is a result of decades of conflict, dating back to the years when Robber Barons hired Pinkerton thugs to assault strikers. Thanks, but no thanks, for the ad hoc arguments.


Bargaining will never be "fair" if our procedures essentially reward both sides for falsely accusing the other of unfairness.
Again: What a crock. The only benefit of ULP is that it makes it harder for employers to fire striking workers.

Back in the real world, the reality remains that this is almost completely negligible in the UAW strike. No one cares. Even GM doesn't care -- they are not planning to fire a bunch of strikers, and they are not proclaiming that claiming ULP issues has permanently poisoned the talks.
 
lol

Dude? You already proclaimed in this thread that you know employers will often contest ULP claims, even when they are legitimate.

"Contesting" it is the default. What other option is there? Say "yeah, we admit it, we committed a ULP?" And then what? The union automatically gets the contract terms it wanted? No, they just head back to bargain some more.

And if I actually have to list abuses by management when it comes to strikes, I'll be here all day. Don't even front.

I didn't ask you to spend all day listing them all, just welcomed you to share examples of employers blatantly lying to avoid being subject to a labor regulation they don't particularly like. I'm not disputing any examples exist, but you made the claim so confidently so I'm sure you can share some examples of employers doing just as I'm describing unions doing.

What a crock! Tensions between labor and management is a result of decades of conflict, dating back to the years when Robber Barons hired Pinkerton thugs to assault strikers.

Very exclusive of you to refer way back to an example of violence initiated against unions/workers. You were the one trying to engage in both-siderism, so follow your own advice and admit the historical examples of union-initiated violence.

Tensions between labor and management are maintained and maximized by procedures that give one side (or both, if you insist) a consequence-free carte blanche to levy false accusations against the other as a way to evade following the rules or their intent.

Again: What a crock. The only benefit of ULP is that it makes it harder for employers to fire striking workers.

They can't "fire" striking workers regardless of the type of strike. Permanent replacement is not "firing," labor laws make that clear. But other than that, that's what I'm saying -- the only reason unions are making up ULP allegations all of a sudden at the tail end of deadlocked negotiations is to for a work-around to a regulation they don't like, not because they have any genuine desire to establish that a ULP was in fact committed.
 
Never claimed the ULP was filed for wages and benefits, so my premise isn't faulty. Your premise of my premise is faulty. Read the post immediately preceding yours.



1) Never heard anything about canceling health benefits. What's that about?

2) It's extremely easy to allege unfair (e.g., surface or regressive) bargaining. A ULP is a procedural complaint. The timing of most ULP strikes is extremely suggestive that the ULPs are not real or sincere. They're a substitute excuse for going on what's in every way an economic strike by nature. Negotiations go on and on, offer, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, management rejects and counteroffers, union rejects and counteroffers, on and on this goes, until finally, one side rejects and submits their "last, best and final offer," which the other side rejects and submits their last, best and final offer, which the other side rejects, and then finally, after all that has happened and negotiations are deadlocked and the union isn't happy with the last best offer, only then are a parade of procedural complaint about unfair bargaining marched out. Highly unlikely.

The ULP allegations that only finally come out after deadlocked negotiations as a basis for going on strike serves on single disingenuous bad faith purpose, which is to send the following message to the employer: "Don't even think about permanent replacements, we've peppered you with 25 different unfair labor practice claims so that gives us all sorts of grounds to fight you on it should you attempt to hire a permanent replacement. Are the ULPs all petty and baseless? Sure, but the NLRB doesn't know that, and they'll look at each and every one, and all we need is for them to agree on one of our ULP allegations and you'll owe the job plus back-pay to the replaced workers and will have wasted so much time and money by then that it won't be remotely worth it to you."

This tactic is an absolute no brainer for unions, in fact unions have a strategic imperative to file spurious ULP claims in bad faith, because there's virtually no risk or penalty for doing so, only upside. The original intent of our regulations differentiating economic strikes from ULP ones is rendered moot by our procedural failures and refusal to enforce it. As a result, we don't just allow unions to file bad faith and spurious ULP claims, we give them a strategic imperative to do so. This guarantees that if unions don't get what they want, they'll pepper the employer with false allegations. It's really hard for an employer that is being attacked with made-up bad faith allegations to respect the organization that is engaging in that tactic. This perpetually frustrates negotiations and ensures unions will be despised by employers, which undermines the entire fundamental intent of the NLRA and associated labor laws, which is to promote harmonious relations between labor and management.

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.

Yeah ya'did. Fix that first and then we can go on.
 
Back
Top Bottom