RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 11:12:30 AM)

quote:

Bullshit, it's a artificial restriction on the supply of labor. You don't like your pay, you go find someone that's willing to pay it (if you can), it's still a free country for a little while longer. You don't have the right to tell your employer I will work for X and you can't hire someone to replace me that will work for less.

If you think things are so biased towards business owners please educate yourself by starting your own business. Afterall, it's so easy to exploit workers you should be a multi-millionaire by yesterday.


First, I do and have owned businesses of my own.

It's a simple matter of free market capitalism, Mr.Capitalist. Workers have the right to collectively bargain for the best deal that they can get themselves for their labor in a free market, just as businesses have the right to market their goods for the best price that they can get. If the business chooses to go off-shore for labor, so be it. However, they should no longer be allowed to remain a U.S. corporation with all the benefits that accrue from same.

You're not a fucking commie are you ?



Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 12:26:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Nothing, including unions, is perfect. The fact remains, however, that without the union movement in this country's history, there would be no middle class, which, btw, and not coincidentaly, is shrinking in the current political environment in which union bashing is as common as working people voting against their own best interests.
No one is saying that unions were not usefull,
they were instrumental in getting legislation passed, now that the laws are there on the books and the courts uphold the law, the unions are not needed. they add to the cost of the bottom line. they keep driving companies to move off shore,
their tactics are just about akin to terror , if you dissagree with them, they do not want secret ballots.
perhaps their time has come.



slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 12:33:25 PM)

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.



Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 12:39:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.
I am saying the unions have.
There is a little thing called  prevailing wage. when dealing with companies and employees it is customary to pay that.
The economy now is so dynamic that people (IE COMPANIES) will pay a good wage for the best people.
I do not beleive in a living wage. that is just babble to squeeze more money out of a company.
If all unions were to go away tomorrow , would some companies take advantage of employees , SURE.
Unions do that same thing to their rank and file today.
again they have out lived their usefullness.



slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 12:55:32 PM)

And all the circumstances you cite are as a result of Unions....remove them from the equation and who will protect that prevailing wage.....or the thousand other benifits workers have as a result of the good work of unions.



cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:14:32 PM)

See, Mike, these commies don't really believe in free market capitalism. They only support an economic oligarchy. Hypocrites !



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:25:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

quote:

Bullshit, it's a artificial restriction on the supply of labor. You don't like your pay, you go find someone that's willing to pay it (if you can), it's still a free country for a little while longer. You don't have the right to tell your employer I will work for X and you can't hire someone to replace me that will work for less.

If you think things are so biased towards business owners please educate yourself by starting your own business. Afterall, it's so easy to exploit workers you should be a multi-millionaire by yesterday.


First, I do and have owned businesses of my own.

It's a simple matter of free market capitalism, Mr.Capitalist. Workers have the right to collectively bargain for the best deal that they can get themselves for their labor in a free market, just as businesses have the right to market their goods for the best price that they can get. If the business chooses to go off-shore for labor, so be it. However, they should no longer be allowed to remain a U.S. corporation with all the benefits that accrue from same.



Benefits ? Like the privilege to pay US taxes on non domestic earnings ? And businesses shouldn't be forced between off-shoring and domestic union labor. Especially when most unions wouldn't exist if it wasn't for union intimidation.

quote:


You're not a fucking commie are you ?


No, but I suspect your slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.



slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:28:18 PM)

Union intimidation.......and what did we call the goons hired by management?   The Girl Scouts of America !!!



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:28:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And all the circumstances you cite are as a result of Unions....remove them from the equation and who will protect that prevailing wage.....or the thousand other benifits workers have as a result of the good work of unions.



Who will protect the prevailing wage ? You, by saying, the hell with this, if the wage is too low and finding someone that will pay you more or by putting out your own shingle. No one can force you to work for a wage you don't agree to, in return you can't force anyone to give you work.




LaTigresse -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:29:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Union intimidation.......and what did we call the goons hired by management?   The Girl Scouts of America !!!


Just give me my cookies dammit.



slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:30:20 PM)

And no one can force the worker to give up the right to collective bargaining.
See that was simple....Now can we move on.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:33:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And no one can force the worker to give up the right to collective bargaining.
See that was simple....Now can we move on.


Why then is eliminating the secret ballot from the equation important to the Administration, Congress, and their Union paymasters?



Vendaval -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:56:32 PM)

Fast Reply -
 
First a couple of points, my experience and perspective of unions echos what has been stated in some of the threads started by Mz. Mia on this subject.  Some of the unions are overall positive in their contributions to their workers and business and the local economy, others are more negative than positive.
 
And of course there are major differences depending on the location, city & county politics and the type of profession represented. 
 
A common problem in California is that many contractors are not only non-union but also non-licessed and hire workers without checking their legal status and pay below-market wages without reporting them for taxes and neglect safety training and codes.  The results are predictable in terms of poor quality, rapid failure of the structures, injuries, deaths and additional costs for repairs and law suits.
 
I did some basic checking on differences in safety ratings for union vs non-union construction and these are some of the findings -

"Plasterers Local 200

"Effective Safety Training
Worksite injuries are a major concern for workers, property owners and contractors alike. Union workers respond to those concerns by learning proper work habits and a thorough understanding of OSHA safety regulations on the work site. The Plasterers’ Union Local 200 is unparalleled in its commitment to ongoing safety programs. These efforts serve to substantially reduce accidents, employer liability, and valuable time lost on work projects.


Our Record Speaks for Itself
A study released in Cockshaw’s Construction Labor News & Opinion (April 2003) revealed that non-union contractors were 360% more unsafe than union contractors. Comparing a 42-month period from 1998 to 2001, OSHA statistics showed 758 OSHA violations in the non-union sector versus 162 violations in the union sector. These types of results are a direct result of the diligence of union safety training."


http://www.plastererslocal200.org/


This next report is specific to South Florida, page 68 in the pdf.


IMMIGRANT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND SAFETY AND HEALTH IN SOUTH FLORIDA, A Research Report
 
Bruce Nissen, Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP), Center for Labor Research and Studies, Florida International University, June 2007 
"Finally, a look at the serious injury rates of these workers again indicated that unionization greatly improves their safety, while documented legal status does not. The results are consistent that unionization improves safety. (While an association is not proof of a causal relationship, in this instance imputation of causality is probably justified, because while it is intuitively implausible or impossible for something like training or personal work habits or employer safety practices to cause, or lead to, unionization, the reverse is not at all implausible.)
 
A third hypothesis was that the unskilled (general laborers) would receive inferior safety outcomes compared to those either semi-skilled or skilled. Results generally support this hypothesis, although not for use of personal protective equipment and only weakly regarding employer practices.
 
Finally, a fourth hypothesis was that inferior working conditions in other areas (lack of health insurance, lack of a pension plan, being paid in cash, etc.) would be associated with inferior safety outcomes. The results strongly support this "bad employer" hypothesis that inferior treatment is clustered in particular employers across safety and non-safety lines. It appears that a very strong variable leading to safer or less safe conditions for these workers is an employer who "cuts corners" in the pursuit of profit compared to one who does not."

http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports/Immigrant_Construction_Workers_and_S_%20H.pdf



thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 1:59:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.


There are a lot of people out there who bargain for their rights and don't need someone else to do it for them. Not sure why others can't do this, but it seems like they can't. They claim they need a union to hold on to their jobs. Maybe they should learn to stand up for themselves.



Coldwarrior57 -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 2:34:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.
at the turn of the century 1900's , the street sweepers in NY were about to be replaced by a more automated way of doing the job. if unions were around at that time then I am sure that today the strees of NY would be swept by hand, after all its keeps people working.
There comes a time for every thing to pass on.



slvemike4u -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 2:48:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.


There are a lot of people out there who bargain for their rights and don't need someone else to do it for them. Not sure why others can't do this, but it seems like they can't. They claim they need a union to hold on to their jobs. Maybe they should learn to stand up for themselves.
And maybe management should learn to negotiate a contract,manufacture a product and turn a profit......everyone is happy.



thishereboi -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 2:57:03 PM)

Just curious...how many of the business you owned were empoyed by union workers?



ElectraGlide -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:02:58 PM)

Working a non-union job gives you much better job security then a union job. Companies that have a network of plants, close the union ones first in hard times. Its a no-brainer move. A company just wants to get the job done, not play with union antics and bullcrap.



aravain -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:05:18 PM)

It doesn't work that way.

If you're skilled labor, and there is no one *willing* to pay you a wage above a certain (too low) amount, you *can't* bargain for it. There will be either *other* people willing to take that job (ANY job) for that wage or lower, or you will become desperate enough (what with being unemployed, and not being able to *collect* unemployment for actively denying offered jobs so having NO form of income) to take that job (ANY job) for any wage they offer.

Without a union, wage standards *CAN'T* be bargained for anything above the minimum wage if the entire industry standardizes it at a certain level. You'll just get laughed at.


And the idea that there is no such thing as a "liveable wage" is silly. You try supporting a family with one working parent at $8 an hour [8|] betcha can't, especially if you didn't have savings before finally finding a job. That's $1200 a week you're bringing in (before taxes). Assuming that you don't pay taxes on any of the money, and work a steady 40 hours a week... that's still only $14,400 a year.

Hardly livable, especially if you have a car payment (to get to work), rent, utilities/bills, gas, groceries (lets assume for three people, yourself, an SO, and a Child, and you're the only one who works), not to mention other costs and taxes!



cjan -> RE: Union vs non-union construction, pros and cons (2/10/2009 3:05:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Let me see if I have this straight.....a workers right to organize and collectively bargain their wages time perhaps has come and gone.Is that about right Cold Warrior.


There are a lot of people out there who bargain for their rights and don't need someone else to do it for them. Not sure why others can't do this, but it seems like they can't. They claim they need a union to hold on to their jobs. Maybe they should learn to stand up for themselves.


I think you are not grasping the concept, and power of collective bargaining. That is what a union does. Sheesh.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375