Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea?

Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/2/2013 11:45:20 PM)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments

RottenJohnny -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 12:00:18 AM)
Which idea are you talking about, the attempt by the union to impose itself on the farmer or the attempt by the farmer to avoid the union?

Zonie63 -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:53:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. If the unions really want to increase their membership, they need to go to states/regions where workers are desperate for higher wages but could use a little outside help in organizing. Instead, they opt to concentrate on areas where wages are too high already and they're pricing themselves out of the market. I've worked at employers where workers have been fired for attempting to start unions, and not once have I ever met or even heard of an organizer from an already-established union come in to help out. They ignore the people who need their help, yet force themselves on those who don't want it or need it. That's the mentality of unions today.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 5:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny Which idea are you talking about, the attempt by the union to impose itself on the farmer or the attempt by the farmer to avoid the union? Actually, the idea that is probably being questioned is the legislation allowing a Union to call for State mediation any time a contract ends. The Farmworker Union can do so for initial contracts, but they are the only Union allowed to do that in CA, according to the article. Also according to the article, State mediation skips the Union/Management negotiations and workers don't get to vote on the final contract. That's not even close to "collective bargaining." That's simply government mandating.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 6:29:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments The workers seem unable to gain the necessary signatures to decertify the union...why is that? Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify.

thishereboi -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 7:56:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments The workers seem unable to gain the necessary signatures to decertify the union...why is that? Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify. Where does it say how many signatures are needed and that they are unable to get them? The only problem I saw mentioned was getting the election held in time. Hopefully it will work and they can get rid of the union for good.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 8:46:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments The workers seem unable to gain the necessary signatures to decertify the union...why is that? Gerawan workers are circulating a petition to hold an election to decertify the union. They already have more than 1,250 signatures. To be valid, a majority of workers must vote to decertify. Where does it say how many signatures are needed and that they are unable to get them? The only problem I saw mentioned was getting the election held in time. Hopefully it will work and they can get rid of the union for good. In the quote I posted. It says it requires a majority. There are over 5000 workers and only 1250 have signed the petition.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 8:49:06 AM)
quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like?

sloguy02246 -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 9:03:07 AM)
These might be some confusion regarding obtaining signatures on the petition and the actual decertification election. (I represented the company I was working for back in the 80's in such a process.) Under current law, the petition requesting the decertification election must have the signatures of 30% of the unionized employees. After submission of the petition to the NLRB, the actual election is held and a simple majority (50% of those voting, plus one vote) results in the union being decertified. (Any fewer votes and the unit continues to be represented by their current union.) If decertified, the involved work unit then cannot be reorganized by any union for a period of one year.

sloguy02246 -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 9:34:52 AM)
In the prior post I should have also stated the obvious: If there are 5,000 unionized employees in the group seeking decertification: 1,500 signatures would be required to force the election, and, 2,501 "yes" votes to decertify would be required to reject the union (if all 5,000 employees voted). Where I was working we had a much smaller unit (46 employees) back in that 1986 election. Three employees were absent the day of the election (2 by choice (apparently did not want to vote), and 1 had scheduled a vacation day). Of the remaining 43 who voted, 22 voted to decertify and 21 voted against it.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 3:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040781488196964.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments Unions suck.

Zonie63 -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:09:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like? I like the theory behind unions, and maybe back in the 1930s and 40s, they were ready to fight the good fight. But now, they're apparently only interested in protecting their pensions and not so much about the principles that motivated their existence in the first place. They already got theirs, so why should they care about anyone else? Where were the unions when Wal-Mart tried to strike a few months back? Just last week, I saw that some fast-food employees in various locations were going on strike, but why don't I see any unions stepping up to go to bat for these people? Where are they, and what are they doing to improve wages and working conditions for American workers (and not just a few key trades or industries or government employees but ALL workers). I find it interesting that they're so desperate to "help" workers who are earning $15 an hour, but what about the workers who earn half that and are probably in greater need of union help? If they're not going to help organize and lead workers who need their help, then what good are they? What is it about unions today that there is to like?

dcnovice -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:14:35 PM)
quote: Unions suck. Yeah. Workers were so much better off in the Gilded Age. [8\|]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Unions suck. Yeah. Workers were so much better off in the Gilded Age. [8\|] Nope....they weren't. Rephrase: Unions suck.....now.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Unions suck. Yeah. Workers were so much better off in the Gilded Age. [8\|] Nope....they weren't. Rephrase: Unions suck.....now. Why do you feel that unions suck now?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:34:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like? I like the theory behind unions, and maybe back in the 1930s and 40s, they were ready to fight the good fight. But now, they're apparently only interested in protecting their pensions and not so much about the principles that motivated their existence in the first place. They already got theirs, so why should they care about anyone else? Where were the unions when Wal-Mart tried to strike a few months back? Just last week, I saw that some fast-food employees in various locations were going on strike, but why don't I see any unions stepping up to go to bat for these people? Where are they, and what are they doing to improve wages and working conditions for American workers (and not just a few key trades or industries or government employees but ALL workers). I find it interesting that they're so desperate to "help" workers who are earning $15 an hour, but what about the workers who earn half that and are probably in greater need of union help? If they're not going to help organize and lead workers who need their help, then what good are they? What is it about unions today that there is to like? I read an op ed within the last 1½ years that pointed out that much of the reason Unions of today have less clout and membership today, is because much of what they originally were fighting for has been written into US Code. How do you fight for safe work conditions when you, for the most part, have safe work conditions (compared to the 30's)? There is "less" to work for nowadays. For the most part, the only things left are wages and benefits. That's why negotiations are primarily centered on those two things.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like? I like the theory behind unions, and maybe back in the 1930s and 40s, they were ready to fight the good fight. But now, they're apparently only interested in protecting their pensions and not so much about the principles that motivated their existence in the first place. They already got theirs, so why should they care about anyone else? Any validation for this peurile opinion? quote: Where were the unions when Wal-Mart tried to strike a few months back? Just last week, I saw that some fast-food employees in various locations were going on strike, but why don't I see any unions stepping up to go to bat for these people? Where are they, and what are they doing to improve wages and working conditions for American workers Since those companies are non union how exactly is the union suppose to help them? quote: (and not just a few key trades or industries or government employees but ALL workers). I find it interesting that they're so desperate to "help" workers who are earning $15 an hour, but what about the workers who earn half that and are probably in greater need of union help? How much did the farm workers make till they were unionized? How much do food service and housekeeping labor make in vegas? quote: If they're not going to help organize and lead workers who need their help, then what good are they? What is it about unions today that there is to like? The same thing there always was to like....bargaining power.

thompsonx -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:44:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like? I like the theory behind unions, and maybe back in the 1930s and 40s, they were ready to fight the good fight. But now, they're apparently only interested in protecting their pensions and not so much about the principles that motivated their existence in the first place. They already got theirs, so why should they care about anyone else? Where were the unions when Wal-Mart tried to strike a few months back? Just last week, I saw that some fast-food employees in various locations were going on strike, but why don't I see any unions stepping up to go to bat for these people? Where are they, and what are they doing to improve wages and working conditions for American workers (and not just a few key trades or industries or government employees but ALL workers). I find it interesting that they're so desperate to "help" workers who are earning $15 an hour, but what about the workers who earn half that and are probably in greater need of union help? If they're not going to help organize and lead workers who need their help, then what good are they? What is it about unions today that there is to like? I read an op ed within the last 1½ years that pointed out that much of the reason Unions of today have less clout and membership today, is because much of what they originally were fighting for has been written into US Code. How do you fight for safe work conditions when you, for the most part, have safe work conditions (compared to the 30's)? There is "less" to work for nowadays. For the most part, the only things left are wages and benefits. That's why negotiations are primarily centered on those two things. And yet we have the case of the plant explosion in texas just recently discussed on this forum. Something to do with falure of some sort of safety regulation to be enforced because the gov. saw to it that regulation was "business friendly" in texas.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 4:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I used to support labor unions, and overall, I still support the basic concepts of workers' rights, fair wage/benefit packages, safe working conditions, etc. However, I think that organized labor has shown itself to be more of a liability than an asset to the remaining 90% of the workforce that hasn't been afforded the privilege of being part of a union. What is it about unions that you do not like? I like the theory behind unions, and maybe back in the 1930s and 40s, they were ready to fight the good fight. But now, they're apparently only interested in protecting their pensions and not so much about the principles that motivated their existence in the first place. They already got theirs, so why should they care about anyone else? Where were the unions when Wal-Mart tried to strike a few months back? Just last week, I saw that some fast-food employees in various locations were going on strike, but why don't I see any unions stepping up to go to bat for these people? Where are they, and what are they doing to improve wages and working conditions for American workers (and not just a few key trades or industries or government employees but ALL workers). I find it interesting that they're so desperate to "help" workers who are earning $15 an hour, but what about the workers who earn half that and are probably in greater need of union help? If they're not going to help organize and lead workers who need their help, then what good are they? What is it about unions today that there is to like? I read an op ed within the last 1½ years that pointed out that much of the reason Unions of today have less clout and membership today, is because much of what they originally were fighting for has been written into US Code. How do you fight for safe work conditions when you, for the most part, have safe work conditions (compared to the 30's)? There is "less" to work for nowadays. For the most part, the only things left are wages and benefits. That's why negotiations are primarily centered on those two things. And yet we have the case of the plant explosion in texas just recently discussed on this forum. Something to do with falure of some sort of safety regulation to be enforced because the gov. saw to it that regulation was "business friendly" in texas. [8\|] You really want to dredge all that up again? Damn.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Yeah, Do you think this is a good idea? (9/3/2013 5:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Unions suck. Yeah. Workers were so much better off in the Gilded Age. [8\|] Nope....they weren't. Rephrase: Unions suck.....now. Why do you feel that unions suck now? Uhm, because they're thugs, because they extract funds from every employee to do as they damm well please, because the unions tried to take over my staff in 1991 and they'd lost money for 3 years, yet still found enough funds to buy a new Caddy for the 8 top key players every year, because when they needed their offices repainted in 1988, they obtained 3 bids (for fairness), 2 from union firms, 1 from a non union firm (again, for fairness) and...they chose the non uion one to paint their offices...but only allowed them in between 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., with none of their vehicles allowed within 3 blocks of their offices while doing so, because they claim they can provide great wages to those who join when the facts are, legally, the only thing they are allowed by law to do is negotiate wages, because if a man (or woman) is highly skilled, able to produce more per hour than someone who is of equal pay, that man (or woman) can't come to the boss and negotiate a better deal.....he or she must go through their"agent". Because they're lying sacks of shit who steal from their own members (and themselves). Because they promised my staff more than any union contract then even offered, yet we offered more than any existing contract by the union paid and yet, they lied as to the facts. My men chose options...instead of the unions....and they make 35% more than had they chosen the unions (and they did prior to being approached by same). Because they unions...(not union members) are slime and deserve to be eradicated from the Earth and any planet we may ever conquer. (I hope that was clear). (I do try to be clear). Oh....and...because they're lower as to any Darwinian life form than words can express. (Was that clear?) If it wasn't clear, allow me to be more expressive: Unions suck.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02