Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto

Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (Full Version)

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

Message

KenDckey -> Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 1:35:50 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070215/pl_nm/congress_labor_veto_dc_1 Apparently Congress was threatened with a veto if they approved a bill to change the way that unions are created and it would force business owners to bargain with them. I am personally against this. I live in a right to work state. If this were passed and 50% +1 Employees signed cards, then I would be forced to join the union in order to get a job (potentially). To me it is like serving two masters. You are required first to follow whatever the union says (in my experience you don't and you get shot at and beat up) then what the employer says. What do you all think?

meatcleaver -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 2:02:24 AM)
If it wasn't for trade unions the vast majority of people would still be living in slums, eating adulterated food and generally exploited to an early grave.

KenDckey -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 2:09:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If it wasn't for trade unions the vast majority of people would still be living in slums, eating adulterated food and generally exploited to an early grave. Oh I have seen places and occupations where I think trade unions would be a good thing, but that hasn't changed my mind. I am still not in favor of forcing me to work for the union and not my employer.

KenDckey -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 2:11:11 AM)
Besides I didn't like it when I was being shot at by a union because I was performing my duty as a soldier

seeksfemslave -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 2:13:15 AM)
Like many things Unions have both good and bad sides. They can promote the welfare of employees but they can also contribute to the maintenance of inefficient over manning etc. Middle management can also do this in that they will spend a budget regardless of real need simply to justify their own existence. Public sector, (govnt. employees) Unions in the UK are a good example of job protectors at any cost. Naturally the cost will be expected to fall on someone else !

meatcleaver -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 2:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Like many things Unions have both good and bad sides. They can promote the welfare of employees but they can also contribute to the maintenance of inefficient over manning etc. Middle management can also do this in that they will spend a budget regardless of real need simply to justify their own existence. Public sector, (govnt. employees) Unions in the UK are a good example of job protectors at any cost. Naturally the cost will be expected to fall on someone else ! Actually I agree to a certain extent, they are at worst, just another vested interest group.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 5:18:47 AM)
I can't understand why so many people are against unions. My father makes $27/hr because he works for a union. My father has no college degree. I will never make that much money.......not even with a master's degree.

meatcleaver -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 6:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I can't understand why so many people are against unions. My father makes $27/hr because he works for a union. My father has no college degree. I will never make that much money.......not even with a master's degree. Unions are great until they become an establishment in themselves and protect the vested interests of one set of workers from other workers rather than supporting all workers against corporations and the heavy hand of the state.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 7:45:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl I can't understand why so many people are against unions. My father makes $27/hr because he works for a union. My father has no college degree. I will never make that much money.......not even with a master's degree. *And my husband makes a lot more then that and is not part of a union.* I agree that at one time the union stepped in a did a great service for many workers, but now a lot of the unions are all about the money. Yes, people still get the union to step in when they have problems at work... and I've seen that abused in every way possible... one guy got the union to help him keep his job and they won. The company wanted to fire him because he was caught stealing from the company, several thousand dollars worth. But noooooo, they couldn't fire him for THAT, the union stepped in and stopped that idiocy. *I wouldn't work at a union shop... period.* *Jewel*

embersMaster -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 7:57:36 AM)
The fact that someone with only a highschool education is making $27/hour ($56,000/year) is a GREAT example of the problem with unions. Being in a capitalist economy means that all labor has a value attached to it. And, I am willing to bet that the work being done by this person is not normally valued at $27/hr. But, the Union has created this reality. It is not good for the economy. Unions had their place. They have created many good and useful things for us in 40 hour work weeks, overtime, hospitable work conditions, etc. But, today Unions are just about getting more for people who do not deserve it. The working world is supposed to incent people to work hard, get an education and therefore make a better life for themselves. No one is entitled to a "living wage." You work hard, you prosper. I wonder how much of the auto and airline industry's issues are because they are forced to work with Unions, who could care less if the business goes under. Don't get me wrong, I think that these two industries have created a lot of other problems for themselves, but having to work with Unions has caused its fair share too. The usefulness of unions has passed. It's time for people to be paid realistic to their education and experience. embersMaster

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 8:02:44 AM)
Amen.

DomKen -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 9:31:08 AM)
I wonder what it would be like if there were no unions? I know, I can look at Walmart and see. I'd be forced to work off the clock. I'd be forced to work for many years as a part time employee but scheduled so that holding anotherjob is impossible. I'd be payed so little that I'd qualify for welfare benefits. Child labor laws and Fair labor standards would be completely ignored. That means no breaks or meals and teen agers working over night. I think keeping Unions around and enforcing laws to allow organization and requiring employers to negotiate in good faith are very good ideas.

ShiftedJewel -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 9:59:34 AM)
You know... so many of those things you listed could just as easily be managed by the government... oh, wait... I think they are!!! And they don't force companies to keep drug addicts and thieves on their payroll. And they don't shut down business's because the business can no longer afford to pay rediculous wages to unskilled labor. People might be forced to learn job skills and to show up for work regularly... damnit, I never thought about that part! The "Child labor laws and Fair labor standards would be completely ignored." statement is just plain silly. Note the word "law", it has nothing to do with the current labor unions... those are labor laws and whether a union exists or not they will still in be law. Just like the amount of time one is allowed to have for breaks and lunch, overtime standards and limits on hours worked by minors. *Jewel*

subfever -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel *You know... so many of those things you listed could just as easily be managed by the government... oh, wait... I think they are!!!* Thank God that the government isn't bought and paid for via the lobbyists, 'eh? Yup... we can surely count on the government looking out for the best interests of the people... [;)]

PoisonRoses -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:10:24 PM)
right to work is just the working mans welfare. I also live in a right to work state. I pay my union dues and have from day one. The ones who whine, cry, and want to file grievances are the ones who usually do not even belong. Under the law the union attorneys have to represent these freeloaders. If you don't want to belong to a union go find a non union job. If you like overtime pay, sick pay, benefits, vacations pay, paid holidays, etc THANK A UNION !!!

Tenire -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:37:15 PM)
I'm not Union, but I do come into contact with alot of companies that ARE on my jobsites. We all make it a point to be cordial to one another, even engaging in discussions and debates. I'm not Union for personal reasons that I don't feel need to aired here, but in all honesty I think it's just my Local Local that sucks. If I move to a Forced Union state (WA since TX just signed Reciprocity agreements with WA and AR WOOHOO!!!!) I would certainly be interested in joining. Somebody mentioned Union workers that suck. Guess what, their own guys don't like them either! I've heard more than one Hand say X just doesn't belong, because he's just here for a check, but we can't get rid of him because he's Union. Sounds just like the non-Union workforce, huh? I respect the Unions and what they have done. However, I still think that Organization IS, HAS BEEN, and SHOULD BE a CHOICE!! However the governing question in that choice shouldn't be "How much" but "Do they care about me or my money?" I've seen personally and listened to the propaganda that a Local can dish out, especially if they want your numbers bad enough. I tried a year before I got into the Trade to join the Local and was shot down for lack of experience. Was I more experienced a year later, being 1 week into my first job in the Trade? Or did the Local just want my numbers? Bottom line (and I'll get off of my soapbox) is that a Union becomes a useless hunk of junk when it stops putting its Hands first and starts trying to run companies and jobsites. When you can't keep from stepping on a Steward until you need some help, then nobody at the Hall will answer. If that's what my Local Local will offer me, then I'll happily be a Rat.

DomKen -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:39:50 PM)
Note that every point in my earlier post is the subject of lawsuits brought by present and past Walmart employees. None are the result of the local, state or federal govts. actually enforcing the labor laws. I wonder who is paying for the plaintiffs lawyers? Could it possibly be the unions that Walmart has universally refused to negotiate with, in violation of both US and Canadian law I might add, even though proper procedures for unionizing various stores/warehouses have been followed? Well what do you know, it is those same unions.

Tenire -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:45:49 PM)
I've heard that Walmart's been known to close stores that get 'Infected' with Unions. That was the word a then Wallyworld employee used.

PoisonRoses -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:56:56 PM)
Hey.. it is suppose to be a free america. If you do not want to belong to a union go across the street to a non union job. I would open the door. Me, I prefer someone on my side. The union calls a meeting and acts as a modirator if you have a problem with a memberof or with all of management. You are allowed to talk face to face and air it out without the fear of being told my way or the highway. You work for a company 18 years and plan on staying with them until retirement. They may want to get rid of you and hire in 2 or 3 for your salary. A salary you have spent years accumulating. Now you are out of job, no benefits, starting at the bottom. Or maybe the manager has a new son-in-law he wants to put into the position you are entitled to. They want to cut your hours so they can trim your benefits, etc.. They can't do it if you have union representation. Plus.. cant fire someone on drugs or a thief? what a crock of bullshit. If there is reason to fire you, you will be fired. A union is not a cure all and does have flaws I agree. But if you are a working man I still think they are your best bet.

HydroMaster -> RE: Unionization Bill Threatened with Veto (2/15/2007 12:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070215/pl_nm/congress_labor_veto_dc_1 Apparently Congress was threatened with a veto if they approved a bill to change the way that unions are created and it would force business owners to bargain with them. I am personally against this. I live in a right to work state. If this were passed and 50% +1 Employees signed cards, then I would be forced to join the union in order to get a job (potentially). To me it is like serving two masters. You are required first to follow whatever the union says (in my experience you don't and you get shot at and beat up) then what the employer says. What do you all think? Well it really all depends on the type of union. My friend is in the bricklayers union and they are quite strick with their rules but they find him his jobs. Most of my family became union in a different way though. They were hired at chemical plants and became union after employment, so they work for the plants but the union negotiates their benefits and represents them in disputes with the company. This is the way that I became a member of the food handlers union in high school when I worked at a gracery store. So depending on circumstances you may be working for the union or for the company. So you should still be able to get a job without joining a union first. And last time I checked the unions that I have had experience with don't beat up or shoot people...what union was this exactly?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875