PDA

View Full Version : Unions



Marvin S
11-01-2012, 04:46 PM
We have a new guy on POTUS who seems to know a little about unions, welcome JS :) - not the usual "Oh you're conservative so you don't like unions garbage". Having sat on both sides of the fence, served as a negotiator in a public setting, been asked to negotiate in a private setting which I turned down & administered contracts, also working under them, I have found many of the comments in the past on this forum not worthy of further discussion.

There is more than 1 side to this discussion - Public-private, Union management-worker -

Let's discuss the good & bad about unions -

& as union membership is 11% of the workforce & JS did not answer my query - what percentage of that 11% is public & what percent private - My guess is that it's tilted 70-30 toward public sector :(.

JS
11-01-2012, 05:01 PM
Oh, but I did answer your query. Post #58 in that thread:


I would estimate that the private sector number is now somewhere between 5 & 10 ... probably closer to 5%.

Last I read the public sector was around 40%. Higher percentage but smaller number.

JS


And I acknowledged it is an estimate but it's pretty close. Your figures are outside my margin of error ... if you're saying 70% of public sector workers, I dispute that. Show me. :confused:

JS

BonMallari
11-01-2012, 05:14 PM
I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an subdivision of the SEIU...the good is that I have a "cadillac" insurance plan, the bad is that I had no say in how funds were spent in backing a candidate for office..in order to have the job I have now I had to join the union...I do not support my union's stance on political issues...

here is something telling about my particular union...the motto on the union hall says "..in solidarity, we will win.."

IMO its that us vs them mentality that starts us in the wrong direction

JS
11-01-2012, 05:27 PM
Marvin, maybe I misread your question. I understood you to ask what percentage of each sector of the job market is organized.

My answer is somewhere around 5% to 10% of the private sector is organized and around 40% of the public sector jobs are organized.

If you are asking what is the body count ratio of organized public workers to private, I’m not sure. But I’ll bet you have an idea and are going somewhere with this. ;-)

Help me out.

JS

And Marvin, I am not "a new guy on POTUS". I only look in occasionally for entertainment purposes. The discourse reminds me of driving on vacation with my 5 daughters in the back of the station wagon. :evil: And there is no way I can stop THIS car.

This is a very boring time of year between the water getting too cold and the winter trip still a couple months off. I was lured into participating out of boredom.

Marvin S
11-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Marvin, maybe I misread your question. I understood you to ask what percentage of each sector of the job market is organized.

My answer is somewhere around 5% to 10% of the private sector is organized and around 40% of the public sector jobs are organized.

If you are asking what is the body count ratio of organized public workers to private, I’m not sure. But I’ll bet you have an idea and are going somewhere with this. ;-)

Help me out.

JS

I live in a heavily unionized state - so I don't follow unions because it raises my blood pressure - but I have a strong interest in them as I believe unions capable of bringing benefit to workers - just not as they are presently run, I'm about as much a fan of union management as I am most democrat politicians - I thought from your posts you could equate what you had posted with numbers.

Now don't quote me, but an article that I read some time past I think I remember stating about 7% of the private sector were unionized & it was like 70% on the public side - this is from memory - & as the KState coach said when asked to compare this team with his 98 team "I'm 72 & have a hard time remembering what I had for dinner last night". I beat the age considerably so only remember what I am really interested in :).

JS
11-01-2012, 07:26 PM
I live in a heavily unionized state - so I don't follow unions because it raises my blood pressure - but I have a strong interest in them as I believe unions capable of bringing benefit to workers - just not as they are presently run, I'm about as much a fan of union management as I am most democrat politicians - I thought from your posts you could equate what you had posted with numbers.

Now don't quote me, but an article that I read some time past I think I remember stating about 7% of the private sector were unionized & it was like 70% on the public side - this is from memory - & as the KState coach said when asked to compare this team with his 98 team "I'm 72 & have a hard time remembering what I had for dinner last night". I beat the age considerably so only remember what I am really interested in :).

Marvin, you make me happy! :razz: I'm 74 and I was not that far off. You, however, have some catching up to do.

From the accompanying link ... BLS 2011 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

• 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union. That constituted 37% of the total public sector employment.

• 7.2 million private sector employees belonged to a union. That constitutes only 6.9% which by my calculation indicates there are roughly 5 times as many private sector workers as those in the public sector.

I'm sorry that this conflicts with commonly held beliefs regarding the preponderance of government workers in the country but I guess numbers are numbers.

JS

HPL
11-01-2012, 07:28 PM
Howdy JS,
Appreciate your deigning to grace us with your presence in these boring times. I am pretty sure that what Marvin was asking was what percentage of all union members work in the public sector and what percentage are employed in the private sector. That is to say, for every 100 union members, how may hold jobs where the tax payer is picking up the tab? As an example, it you picked 1000 union members at random, and found that 670 of those 1000 union members were paid by tax money, then one could estimate that 67% of union members are in the public sector, leaving 33% working in the private sector.

JS
11-01-2012, 08:01 PM
Howdy JS,
Appreciate your deigning to grace us with your presence in these boring times. I am pretty sure that what Marvin was asking was what percentage of all union members work in the public sector and what percentage are employed in the private sector. That is to say, for every 100 union members, how may hold jobs where the tax payer is picking up the tab? As an example, it you picked 1000 union members at random, and found that 670 of those 1000 union members were paid by tax money, then one could estimate that 67% of union members are in the public sector, leaving 23% working in the private sector.

Well, Marvin is the engineer not me, and I am not a mathematician either but using the numbers I just posted, I would calculate roughly 122 million workers, about 20.5 million of them public employees and 102 million in the private sector. Since the number of union members is roughly equal in each group, as I showed above, and you picked from union members only, then the ratio would be about 50/50. If you picked your random sample from the entire workforce the ratio would be more like 5/1 toward the private side.

Still not sure what you're after.

JS

Marvin S
11-01-2012, 09:37 PM
• 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union. That constituted 37% of the total public sector employment.
• 7.2 million private sector employees belonged to a union. That constitutes only 6.9% which by my calculation indicates there are roughly 5 times as many private sector workers as those in the public sector. JS

That's what I was lookijng for :). It's possible the article I read had a stated goal of 70% organized :confused:. Be that as it may - it gives some good numbers for discussion.

HPL
11-02-2012, 12:22 PM
Well, Marvin is the engineer not me, and I am not a mathematician either but using the numbers I just posted, I would calculate roughly 122 million workers, about 20.5 million of them public employees and 102 million in the private sector. Since the number of union members is roughly equal in each group, as I showed above, and you picked from union members only, then the ratio would be about 50/50. If you picked your random sample from the entire workforce the ratio would be more like 5/1 toward the private side.

Still not sure what you're after.

JS

I have read and re-read Marvin's initial post here and as it reads, he was simply asking what proportion of unionized workers are in the "public" sector and what proportion are in the private sector. Your post indicating that approximately 50% of union workers are in the public sector actually finally answered Marvin's initial question and at the same time showed that those being paid by the taxpayer are disproportionately unionized, and that last part is what is really worth discussing.

JS
11-02-2012, 04:04 PM
I have read and re-read Marvin's initial post here and as it reads, he was simply asking what proportion of unionized workers are in the "public" sector and what proportion are in the private sector. Your post indicating that approximately 50% of union workers are in the public sector actually finally answered Marvin's initial question and at the same time showed that those being paid by the taxpayer are disproportionately unionized, and that last part is what is really worth discussing.

Well, discuss on.

Does someone owe someone an apology??

I don't know what you mean by "disproportionate". I would guess that among the clergy, the percentage would be zero. What's the point?

JS

Marvin S
11-02-2012, 10:16 PM
Does someone owe someone an apology??

As long as it is owed no one will get beat out of it, but I don't think so.

Here's my experience with union - both sides - Grew up in a RTW state, SD. Buzz the good union man lives there now. You have to ask yourself "why did his company choose to locate there?"

1st experience with a union was the Mine Mill in Butte - as a contract miner, paid my dues, & made money through my & my partners hard work. Later worked in a sales position part time - union dues not required until I outsold the regulars & all of a sudden, dues were required including back dues, so I quit. There were no student loans so times were pinchy my last 3 months in school, but I survived.

Then went to work as a trainee at Climax Molybdenum - shift boss 8 months later - union contract specified that a miner was vested after 30 calendar days. I fought a lot of grievances but learned a lot about the psyche of people who only want to draw a paycheck. I have always felt the boss set the standard for his crew & you were not doing someone a favor who was not performing to keep them onboard. I also got hardworkers who were unable to perform the work underground reassigned to other jobs where they could be productive. Needless to say I got my job done but left that company over their promotion policy.

Next it was back to Butte as a Shift Boss at a mine that was reopening - same union I had belonged to as a miner, only now I am administering the contract. The company had a hiring hall so men could be discharged with impunity & go back to work that afternoon on swing shift. The president of the union also made the same as the lowest paid underground employee, which I thought to be :cool:. I was later made an Assistant Foreman & had many good discussions about union with our guy who kept the Mine Dry (Locker Room) clean along with the Mine Office. He knew I was not a union sympathizer but explained how it had been prior to a union being in Butte & he made some good points, Much to the shock of management I left that job after 3 1/2 years (with a clear path to the top) over a salary dispute, which was one of the smarter moves of my career.

Back to Boeing - as an engineer, basically a beginner, made the same salary for a 40 hour week (with only myself to answer for) that I had been making for a 66 hour week in Butte with 400 men & 15 shift bosses to look after. The thrill of being in charge goes away quickly when there is little money left over & getting time off was unheard of.

At Boeing I joined the Engineers Association, paid my dues, & generally stayed out of affairs except for input about negotiations. It generally boiled down to things being put into our contract that management & the unrepresented needed. Drug treatment being a good example - most engineers are pretty square, as a group they don't do drugs & I would imagine their children follow that. I was asked once to be a negotiator but felt their was too little an understanding by the rank & file of engineers about what negotiations were so turned that down. The Association then began allowing other than engineers to belong & over the years it has gone from professional to just another union. Which culminated in the longest white collar strike in history a few years back.

We worked alongside the machinist union members - I have great respect for the mechanics & tooling people - beyond that, the majority of the union members are overpaid for their contribution. It is small wonder Boeing moved another line to SC (another RTW state) to gain some labor negotiation traction. We saw how the BHO administation viewed that.

& while I was doing all that I was a School Board member & chair of the negotiations committee for 5 1/2 years - I have sat face to face with the teachers - & trust me most don't like engineers, you may pick your reason, I have mine - It was an experience & the 1st time they had faced a situation where if they wanted something, what were they willing to give in return? So those are my experiences with a lot of detail left out -

There are 4 factions to this union thing - 1) private union workers, 2) private union hierarchy, 3) public union employees & 4) public union hierarchy. My sympathies only lie with !) the private union workers, to a point, but they are in the position that getting too greedy could mean their job relocates, whether it be overseas or stateside. When you change providers there will be a lowering of quality, for how long is a question, but the folks who count the beans don't really care. & that's the way it is :).

JS
11-03-2012, 08:22 AM
I was not expecting a resume’ Marvin, but thank you. I am gone for the weekend but will reciprocate Monday.

There are fleeting indications in there that you may be a somewhat reasonable guy! Scary! :shock: Actually, I thought you put me on your ignore list 10 years ago when I called you a “bitter old man” in a thread about your judging database. :D I thought at the time it left a mark but maybe not. Or maybe it did and you are over it. Or maybe you now see an opportunity to get even and are just sucking me in. ;-)

You commented that you left a couple jobs over promotion and salary disputes. Without prying into personal issues, I wonder if you care to expound? Were you seeking to improve your lot in these situations or did you think the company was being too generous? That’s none of my business, so ... just wondering.

Have a good weekend.

JS

Marvin S
11-05-2012, 10:45 PM
I was not expecting a resume’ Marvin, but thank you. I am gone for the weekend but will reciprocate Monday.

There are fleeting indications in there that you may be a somewhat reasonable guy! Scary! :shock: Actually, I thought you put me on your ignore list 10 years ago when I called you a “bitter old man” in a thread about your judging database. :D I thought at the time it left a mark but maybe not. Or maybe it did and you are over it. Or maybe you now see an opportunity to get even and are just sucking me in. ;-)

You commented that you left a couple jobs over promotion and salary disputes. Without prying into personal issues, I wonder if you care to expound? Were you seeking to improve your lot in these situations or did you think the company was being too generous? That’s none of my business, so ... just wondering.

Have a good weekend.

JS

I rarely put anyone on ignore - I can pick up on stupid so there is not a need to reply to them - TBS, what I found with the database is those who were the loudest in their criticism also had the fewest, if any, pelts on their wall in our end of the sport, that being FT's. I have a lot of e-mails from folks who played our game seriously applauding my effort. I've never played the game of suckering anyone, they seem to be able to do that on their own.

As for the jobs thing - the 1st company I left was one that did not base promotions on merit, the second company based them on merit but was unwilling to pay. When I left the 2nd company I had to go talk to the VP of Western Operations before they would give me my last check. I wasn't in the room 5 minutes when I realized I had made the right choice in leaving.

I was also lucky enough to work for some really good managers during my maturation on the management side, as this was the days those on the practical side (meaning sans a sheepskin) were numerous & they were a wealth of knowledge for someone willing to listen & observe the results of their efforts. As I thought about this the 1st company was very strict about appointing their practical guys on merit but those with a sheepskin not so much so. The 2nd company was the opposite - merit on the educated side, on the practical side not so much so which may have been due to the fact the best guys were contracting & could easily beat a shift bosses salary with less hours.

My reason for the brief resume was to put those on notice who are supporters of public employee unions without realizing (or maybe they do) that there is a difference & they need to be able to defend their position. I'm really waiting for some of those out of MN, MI & Buzz to add their :2c:. I have no shortage of war stories about this subject just waiting for the experts to line up their weaponry :-P.

JS
11-06-2012, 11:58 AM
.......

My reason for the brief resume was to put those on notice who are supporters of public employee unions without realizing (or maybe they do) that there is a difference & they need to be able to defend their position. I'm really waiting for some of those out of MN, MI & Buzz to add their :2c:. I have no shortage of war stories about this subject just waiting for the experts to line up their weaponry :-P.



:shock:
brief: concise in expression; using few words. introductions were brief and polite.

My brief resume tops yours in quantity by an 1093 - 827 margin. Part of my weaponry is to wear you down with pure verbiage. :eek:

I graduated high school in 1956 not knowing what I wanted to do next. I had no way to pay for college, even if I could have worked for room & board. A couple of upper classmen friends had joined the Navy and convinced me that may be a good option ... earn the GI bill and go to school later.

After boot camp I qualified for sonar school and through that experience, developed an interest in getting on a submarine. I applied and by the time I was approved, I had to extend my enlistment obligation to get into submarine school. Best duty in the USN and the entire military, by far! It is a culture in itself and “grows a young kid up” in a hurry!

Come time to be discharged, I was married with the first of my 5 beautiful daughters and the 2nd on the way. College is on the back burner again. I had some Navy training in electronics (sonar maintenance) and was qualified for a job in that field but I stumbled into the employment office at John Deere and found work at nearly twice the earnings. For a kid in my situation, that was a no-brainer.

I went to work in the foundry. (This was a 1960 foundry ... not the modern ones of today. Most on this forum have never even walked through one. Hot, dirty, stinky and hard, hard work, with high turnover. But the pay was good.) Work in the agricultural implement factories was seasonal at that time and I was laid off after about 6 months. By the time I was called back a year later, I had landed a job as a route salesman/driver for Wonder Bread. Long hours, 6 days a week but the work was enjoyable and the pay was comparable and I had decided I was going to make my career there, so I declined recall to Deere.

After 5 years, circumstances changed on the bread route and Deere was hiring. I returned there in 1966. Back to the foundry where most all new employees start. After a time, I amassed enough seniority to get a job in a metal stamping/pressing department. And later, on to assembly line work.

Labor/management relations were contentious at that time, far more so than anywhere today. As I gained experience in the “real world” I began to take a greater interest in our UAW contract and in the role of the union in general. I was encouraged by my peers to run, and was elected as shop steward. Over time, I earned the respect and confidence of my co-workers and local union leadership and was approached to move up


I served my local UAW membership in various capacities for 25 years, including as vice president. We were/are the largest local union in the state, representing the 3 Deere plants in our town; engine manufacturing, component manufacturing, and assembly. We had a over 12,000 members the first time I stood a plant-wide election.

side note:
During this time, I was also approached several times by management to accept various salaried positions. This was a common practice on the part of management, partly because you have proven your effectiveness in executing your union responsibilities, (they wanted you) and partly because you have proven your effectiveness in executing your union responsibilities, (they wanted you out of their hair). Though the bennies were much better, that route did not look attractive to me for a number of other reasons.

Among my specific areas of responsibility was overseeing our incentive pay system, a sophisticated, Frederick Taylor based model developed by management industrial engineers and accepted by the union as a part of our contract. I was trained by the company in the same classroom along with the new IEs and my role was to investigate grievances related to that system and resolve them jointly with the company. I was also involved with our CAP (Community Action Program), the political action committee. This was largely weekend conferences, meetings, etc. to educate ourselves and stay abreast of political issues as they affected our members.

I was prodded numerous times by upper union officials to accept appointments to International Union positions but I was looking to downsize my travel and weekend commitments, not expand them. Plus, moving to Chicago ...

After about 20 years, my dream job came along. In the early 80s, the buzz word in labor/management became “Employment Involvement”. John Deere and the UAW agreed to launch such an effort with the help and guidance of an outstanding management consulting firm specializing in this stuff. One of our local plants was selected as a pilot for that program. By now I had returned to school, completely through night classes at the University of Northern Iowa. As a psychology major, I had become fascinated with the subject of job enrichment; the design of the work process itself, team building, and all that stuff. I was offered the chance to be the union coordinator and work jointly with a middle management counterpart appointed by the company. I jumped at it and we shared the same office full time and headed up that effort for the last 10 years of my working life. We were joined at the hip in what would have been political suicide for each of us, had we not been committed to the effort. Through the success we had, the program was adopted throughout the Deere chain. Our experiences and the impact we had on the relationships from the front corner office to the shop floor, AS WELL AS the effectiveness of our business operation, would fill many books! To this day, I talk occasionally with my counterparts and reminisce about the way things changed and what we had to do with it.

I don’t know much about the inner workings of trade unions other than what I have learned through casual conversations. Neither do I have any direct experience with public sector unions, but I do know a little about them as my wife was a teacher for 34 years.

I am proud that, during my career, I earned the respect and friendship of a great many folks; constituents, members of upper management and upper union officials. At my retirement party, I choked up numerous times, not because I was leaving work, but because of those who came to wish me well. Some I had not seen for years ... including a couple former plant managers, one who had moved on to become a corporate VP.

JS

Paul "Happy" Gilmore
11-07-2012, 12:46 AM
Unions strong arm part time workers and steal their money while providing no benefits or representation that they promise.

Marvin S
11-07-2012, 09:28 PM
My brief resume tops yours in quantity by an 1093 - 827 margin. Part of my weaponry is to wear you down with pure verbiage. :eek:

Your resume is impressive - TBS - I have found all unions have different operating MO's, sorta like businesses - some do a good job for their folks, most don't -

When I left - I did not inform my bosses until that day, so they had to promote one of my guys :cool:. Took everyone to lunch & when they asked informed them that this was probably the only free lunch they would get in their life, as I wanted nothing from them :). I really enjoyed what I did, the adrenalin rush of keeping a line moving is hard to duplicate & especially one where you are moving acoup[le of 30 mil or more units out the door daily.

Still waiting for the experts on unions to weigh in :-P.

Uncle Bill
11-08-2012, 11:19 AM
Being a former unionista when going to school in Mpls. Voted it in, and voted it out. A small company of only 15. It was needed when we voted it in, and no longer necessary when we voted it out.

The best 'documentary' on unions is a book authored by Linda Chavez/ Daniel Grey. Being a former union official, she has the insight to "tell it like it is", and it's understandable why the Democrat party doesn't want this book to be read by anyone. Some Democrats SHOULD be reading this, so they get knowledgeable about where their dues are going.

UB

JS
11-08-2012, 02:03 PM
Being a former unionista when going to school in Mpls. Voted it in, and voted it out. A small company of only 15. It was needed when we voted it in, and no longer necessary when we voted it out.

The best 'documentary' on unions is a book authored by Linda Chavez/ Daniel Grey. Being a former union official, she has the insight to "tell it like it is", and it's understandable why the Democrat party doesn't want this book to be read by anyone. Some Democrats SHOULD be reading this, so they get knowledgeable about where their dues are going.

UB


Uncle Bill, once again you demonstrate that you look at the world through a toilet paper tube. You briefly belonged to a small union local until it served your needs (I am surprised you admitted that much) and then you "dropped out", retaining the benefits. Is that your definition of a "unionista"? I always wondered what that meant.

Then you cite a single "documentary" that will tell folks all they want to know about the labor movement. Not surprising coming from someone who appears to get ALL their "news" ... using that term loosely ... from a single source. I would look that book up had the suggestion come from someone with credibility, but you lost yours long ago by repeatedly posting misinformation and outright lies without bothering to check their factuality. (the last one, even including a self-debunking link! Really!?) Thing is, I have not only read a number of anti-union writings, I have lived it. However I can provide you with some reading sources depicting the positive side, but I imagine you would not want to waste your time with that. Wrong "facts".

Broaden your horizons and then come back and talk to me.

JS

menmon
11-08-2012, 02:19 PM
Dues keep the lights on at the union hall and pay the business manager and assistants salary and and cost associated with them doing there job. If the membership believes that they are misusing these funds and not doing their job the vote them out. I portion of it go the international office and it does the same there too.

Uncle Bill
11-08-2012, 04:01 PM
Uncle Bill, once again you demonstrate that you look at the world through a toilet paper tube. You briefly belonged to a small union local until it served your needs (I am surprised you admitted that much) and then you "dropped out", retaining the benefits. Is that your definition of a "unionista"? I always wondered what that meant.

Then you cite a single "documentary" that will tell folks all they want to know about the labor movement. Not surprising coming from someone who appears to get ALL their "news" ... using that term loosely ... from a single source. I would look that book up had the suggestion come from someone with credibility, but you lost yours long ago by repeatedly posting misinformation and outright lies without bothering to check their factuality. (the last one, even including a self-debunking link! Really!?) Thing is, I have not only read a number of anti-union writings, I have lived it. However I can provide you with some reading sources depicting the positive side, but I imagine you would not want to waste your time with that. Wrong "facts".

Broaden your horizons and then come back and talk to me.

JS


With someone so firmly entrenched up the party arses as you, I wouldn't have nor intend to find the time to talk with you about anything.

You can sell your soul, if you profess to have one, to the company store by living for the unions...and you can continue to be in favor of killing babies and same sex marriage by the various BFers in your crowd. You don't want to reside in the real American USA...just your messiahs muslim-loving world. The Constitution he finds 'bothersome' to comply with, fits your mold just fine. You are an OOOLD Democrat that hasn't figured out the party has left you looooong ago. But now you are just hanging out for the feebies.

UB

PS While you may be fuming about this post, you don't need to reply. It's full of non-Snopes-made-up-info, which I don't expect you to buy into because I never know anything factual.

murral stark
11-08-2012, 04:43 PM
JS,
Some of the members here are out there.

There are Optimists= glass half full

There are Pessimists= Glass half empty

Then there are people such as UB and others of his mindset= so negative that they don't even have a glass. LOL

smillerdvm
11-08-2012, 05:00 PM
UB

PS I never know anything factual.

Well I'm gonna have to agree with you for once

huntinman
11-08-2012, 05:13 PM
JS,
Some of the members here are out there.

There are Optimists= glass half full

There are Pessimists= Glass half empty

Then there are people such as UB and others of his mindset= so negative that they don't even have a glass. LOL

Then we have Murral = Head mostly empty.

Larry Thompson1
11-08-2012, 05:13 PM
Union=comunist sheep. Oh by the way I grew up in a union houshold in Detroit.

murral stark
11-08-2012, 06:24 PM
Then we have Murral = Head mostly empty.

Incorrect sir. My head is mostly full. Just don't have any of the "chicken little" BS information in it. Since Obama got elected again, and the apocalypse is due any day now. Would you like to buy one of those bomb shelters that I have for sale? LOL

menmon
11-09-2012, 01:26 PM
Union=comunist sheep. Oh by the way I grew up in a union houshold in Detroit.

Union wages put a roof over your head and fed you and you spit on them now. I wouldn't want you in my union anyway.

kjrice
11-09-2012, 05:52 PM
Non-union laborers can thank the Unions for maintaining a certain pay scale.

murral stark
11-09-2012, 05:54 PM
Union wages put a roof over your head and fed you and you spit on them now. I wouldn't want you in my union anyway.

and they call the 47% "takers" As long as it suits your current situation it's ok. but when you have gotten what you needed from something in the past, and now "YOU" don't need it. It's bad.

DSO
11-09-2012, 08:20 PM
This may be a hijack and deserving of a separate thread but as things unfolded here at home I decided to share this with people I consider politically savvy under a thread header that seems to fit. Some on here know my views better than others and admittedly I rarely post yet read RTF and POTUS every day. I'll attempt to post links regarding the recent corruption indictments of village officials in the municipality where I work. This story is long and deep. What you'll see on the links provided are but the tip of the iceberg.These indictments were a direct result of our in house union filing civil service grievances with NY state regarding how our village officials chose to run our municipality. It forced other / larger (local and state) agencies to investigate what was really going on (and being propagated) by our elected officials. I'm a conservative republican. I'm a 22 year civil servant. I'm a Sergeant in the municipality that you'll read about. Once elected / appointed, these people targeted our police dept. They voted into local law and have in place a police commission which is the sole authority over my dept and decides the fate of officers based on complaints they receive from the public. There have been numerous personnel complaints against my officers that have not only been entertained but encouraged by this administration. All to this date were totally false. Our union had to fight these allegations to protect our officers. We had to use our resources to keep bad guys in jail and protect our officers and the integrity of our agency. So when I hear that unions have out lived there usefulness and are basically a drain on municipalities I have a different view. When I read posts from RTFers about the over paid cops and firefighters / servants that seem to be regarded as a necessary evil, it bothers me. They're there in NY / Jersey / Ct still helping those affected by Sandy. Here is my attempt at posting the links.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121109/MEDIA0202/121109582

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2012/November/09/LiGreci_Hutchins_indict1-09Nov12.htm

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121109/NEWS/121109577

Danny

Marvin S
11-09-2012, 08:34 PM
This may be a hijack and deserving of a seperate thread http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121109/MEDIA0202/121109582

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/2012/November/09/LiGreci_Hutchins_indict1-09Nov12.htm

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121109/NEWS/121109577

Danny

Good for your department :cool:. Later on there will be stories from the other side that do not cast a good reflection on those who are the 1st responders. I have several & they are not to cast any reflection on those who serve honorably, though at times that is hard to do.

JS
11-10-2012, 06:02 PM
From another thread, Marvin posted:


I look forward to the posting - hopefully you will be able to do some correlation regarding my original guesstimate of union membership by state. Remember, withholding information available is a form of lying, & I just believe you are above that :smile:. It will make a very good baseline for my next foray onto the union thread :cool:.

That's what my granddad taught me. More than once! ;-)


Not to hurt any feelings but, I find it interesting when someone who lives in a RTW state, with little or no understanding of the situation a uneven playing field brings, espouses anything on the subject. Where we live the unions have inserted themselves into the fabric of government to the point of diminishing returns? I will post more on that subject & my opinion on what that does after your posting on the union thread :smile:.

I do live in a right-to-work state, but I question the relevance of that regarding level playing fields or union impact on the general citizenry.

When a group of workers decide they want to be represented by a union and bargain collectively, they will approach an organizer of their choice, have informational Q&A meetings, go back and talk to fellow workers and try to build a critical mass. Most of this is done secretly in private homes, as they are jeopardizing their jobs and their livelihood if labeled a "troublemaker". During all this time, the company has the ability to bring the employees together openly, on company time for "coffee & donuts" and explain all the reasons that joining a union would be "bad". I have even heard that threats may be made. :-x (So far, RTW has not come into play.)

If/when the workers believe there is a majority who want to be represented, they will petition for an election. IF the vote passes, and the chosen union is designated the sole bargaining agent for the employees, THEN, it is required, in your state (non RTW) that ALL employees, regardless of the way they voted, MUST be represented equally by the union processes AND MUST also share in the cost of that representation by paying dues.

RTW does not have much, if any impact on the workers choice or ability to organize. Only that all those represented will pay their share. That will certainly affect the percentage of union members in your state because there will be no freeriders in those shops that are organized, but it gives no advantage to a union or the workers in the process of attaining union representation if they so choose or in the power of the union to represent.

My state is a right-to-work state and I don't remember ever having even half a percent who did not voluntarily join and pay dues. We had a 90 day probationary period in which new employees did not accrue seniority and could be terminated by the company without recourse by the union.

BTW, Iowa is right at the median of the 50 states in percentage of union membership at 13%, not close to Washington (21% ... congratulations ;-)) but I doubt RTW has a significant impact that.

JS

JS
11-10-2012, 06:09 PM
Marvin, your response to DSO:


Good for your department :cool:. Later on there will be stories from the other side that do not cast a good reflection on those who are the 1st responders. I have several & they are not to cast any reflection on those who serve honorably, though at times that is hard to do.

I appreciate his story and have many, many like that as I'm sure you have many to the contrary, but I would rather make this discussion one on philosophy before we get into swapping anecdotes. That is entertaining but can take more time than either of us have left. :eek:

JS

Marvin S
11-12-2012, 11:13 AM
I do live in a right-to-work state, but I question the relevance of that regarding level playing fields or union impact on the general citizenry.

When a group of workers decide they want to be represented by a union and bargain collectively, they will approach an organizer of their choice, have informational Q&A meetings, go back and talk to fellow workers and try to build a critical mass. Most of this is done secretly in private homes, as they are jeopardizing their jobs and their livelihood if labeled a "troublemaker". During all this time, the company has the ability to bring the employees together openly, on company time for "coffee & donuts" and explain all the reasons that joining a union would be "bad". I have even heard that threats may be made. :-x (So far, RTW has not come into play.)

If/when the workers believe there is a majority who want to be represented, they will petition for an election. IF the vote passes, and the chosen union is designated the sole bargaining agent for the employees, THEN, it is required, in your state (non RTW) that ALL employees, regardless of the way they voted, MUST be represented equally by the union processes AND MUST also share in the cost of that representation by paying dues.

RTW does not have much, if any impact on the workers choice or ability to organize. Only that all those represented will pay their share. That will certainly affect the percentage of union members in your state because there will be no freeriders in those shops that are organized, but it gives no advantage to a union or the workers in the process of attaining union representation if they so choose or in the power of the union to represent.

My state is a right-to-work state and I don't remember ever having even half a percent who did not voluntarily join and pay dues. We had a 90 day probationary period in which new employees did not accrue seniority and could be terminated by the company without recourse by the union.

I was not aiming at IA - more like TX, SD & MN :). I assumed you were a union state based on the IH strike (which everyone but JD lost) & the meat packers around Sioux City.


BTW, Iowa is right at the median of the 50 states in percentage of union membership at 13%, not close to Washington (21% ... congratulations ;-)) but I doubt RTW has a significant impact that. JS

If they were private sector union members that would be an impressive number - but for the most part those private sector unions are heavily involved in government contracting - so if the union can't get what they want at the table they back door it through the legislature. Prevailing Wage - Family Wages -

WA has had a unbroken string of 8 D governors, most for two 4 year terms - the only break was a RINO (Spellman) - The most conservative governor I remember is Rosellini, an old style D. Dan Evans was the most conservative R :(. The unions put them there & they have publicly stated they expect payback.

The average wage for unionized state employees (there is no other kind) is a large enough percentage that the state would have $10Bil to spend it they met the statewide average for the private sector. & that does not take into account their benefits. If you say the State employees are better educated remember we have Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, a huge biotech sector all of which are much smarter than the average bear :cool:.

That kind of clout translates into 1/2 a % here & a 1/2 a % there & over that many years it amounts to a lot of wasted money. When the cases go to court, most of the judges have been appointed by D's, so the result is like not going. That kind of clout also makes the regulators brave, so businesses are constantly keeping attorney's busy to protect their rights or going without.

Hopefully you get my message - When I ran for the State Legislature in the mid 70's on of the legislators told me WA was the 3rd most unionized state in the USA. I don't believe anything has changed.

I won't go to 1st responders as they have their own unique set of rules - there is a reason that both the King County & Seattle cops are under Federal oversight for brutality - deservedly so :(. & rest assured I'm not a criminal lover!!!!!!!!!!!!

PamK
11-13-2012, 03:46 PM
My neighbor works for Hostess corp office and this isn't looking good. I don't understand why anyone would strike at a company that is in bankruotcy. The company has said they will have to liquidate if the contract isn't signed. So don't sign the contract and lose your job?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-shuts-3-plants-035700490.html

luvmylabs23139
11-13-2012, 03:56 PM
My neighbor works for Hostess corp office and this isn't looking good. I don't understand why anyone would strike at a company that is in bankruotcy. The company has said they will have to liquidate if the contract isn't signed. So don't sign the contract and lose your job?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-shuts-3-plants-035700490.html

They are waiting for another Obama bailout!

Marvin S
11-13-2012, 04:48 PM
My neighbor works for Hostess corp office and this isn't looking good. I don't understand why anyone would strike at a company that is in bankruotcy. The company has said they will have to liquidate if the contract isn't signed. So don't sign the contract and lose your job?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-shuts-3-plants-035700490.html

Apparently these folks think no job is better than some job - Vulcan Properties has already called nibs on the plant here in Seattle, which is prime RE - that'll be 110 less workers to the 21% that WA unionista's enjoy - & these folks were real private sector union guys - the work will go elsewhere cause everyone needs a Twinkie :).

murral stark
11-13-2012, 04:57 PM
Mercury marine just announced they are adding 170 jobs at their plants in Fond du Lac, WI. $14 and change to start. I think that is a union facility too.

Larry Thompson1
11-13-2012, 05:33 PM
Union wages put a roof over your head and fed you and you spit on them now. I wouldn't want you in my union anyway.

You think you know everything. My father was in the union, but it was my mother that brought home the bacon. My father was either on strike or out drinking with his union buddies. Every week down to the union hall to drink and complain about how they were mistreated by the people who paid them. My mother (non-union) worked all the time to put food on the table and a roof over my head. The sheep just drank.

Larry Thompson1
11-13-2012, 05:39 PM
and they call the 47% "takers" As long as it suits your current situation it's ok. but when you have gotten what you needed from something in the past, and now "YOU" don't need it. It's bad.
Didn't need them then or now. The unions are full of people that don't have the guts to go out and earn it on thier own, they need to have the saftey net under them.

mngundog
11-13-2012, 10:59 PM
Didn't need them then or now. The unions are full of people that don't have the guts to go out and earn it on thier own, they need to have the saftey net under them.
:D............. Yep, those unions are filled with a bunch of unemployed freeloaders........ Sorry about your dad.................

murral stark
11-13-2012, 11:21 PM
You think you know everything. My father was in the union, but it was my mother that brought home the bacon. My father was either on strike or out drinking with his union buddies. Every week down to the union hall to drink and complain about how they were mistreated by the people who paid them. My mother (non-union) worked all the time to put food on the table and a roof over my head. The sheep just drank.
Don't lump all union workers in with the bad apples you talked about. Not all union members are that way. that's like me saying all republicans are stupid. Not all, just some are stupid. same can be said about the democrats as well. Not all, just some are stupid.

Buzz
12-04-2012, 04:04 PM
I thought about this thread when I came across this article researching some company stock information today.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-labor-unions-172114831.html