PDA

View Full Version : Michigan........



road kill
12-07-2012, 06:09 AM
Right to work state??

Say what?????

Franco
12-07-2012, 07:21 AM
Becoming a Right To Work state is the biggest step Michigan could take in attracting new businesses and stimulating their economic recovery.

Personally, I could never imagine living in a state where workers aren't free. Of course, I live in an area of my state where unempolyment is less than 4% and our per House-Hold Income is the highest in the state. An area where the word "union" is frowned upon.

JS
12-07-2012, 09:00 AM
"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinds like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)

To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS

mngundog
12-07-2012, 09:04 AM
If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.

road kill
12-07-2012, 09:13 AM
If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.
Then why have a union at all?

mngundog
12-07-2012, 09:18 AM
Then why have a union at all?
I have voted for and against bringing unions in, they have there place in certain situations, employee protection for one.

HPL
12-07-2012, 09:21 AM
"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinda like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)



To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS


I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................

Franco
12-07-2012, 09:21 AM
"Right to Work" has nothing to do with "freedom".

Workers are always FREE to choose whether they want the WORK to be represented by a union OR NOT. The difference is that in a RTW state, a worker can accept the benefits and working conditions negotiated by the union and the company, WITHOUT paying the cost of that representation (dues). Kinds like accepting government benefits (handouts) without paying taxes ... something all of us here despise. ;-)

To think that a company would avoid union organizing simply by moving to a RTW state is a misconception.

JS

Not down here!;-) The Oil Field has always refused to talk with unions and neither does the Medical Industry in this part of the world.

JS
12-07-2012, 09:31 AM
If you check the numbers there is little difference between the two (RTW or Union), if you cherry pick the numbers you could make a case for either one. Unemployment rate .6% lower in a RTW state and median wages are 9% lower, pick and choose either side Will make their case.

There IS QUITE a difference between states with higher union representation and those with less, RTW notwithstanding.

Compare median income. Maybe it's just me but I think good wages are a GOOD thing.

Compare tax contribution vs. tax distribution ... (those graphics Henry V provided a while back). The states with the lowest union representation (and the lowest wages) are, in general, the states that TAKE more from the government than they CONTRIBUTE. If I lived in one of those states on the other end of the spectrum ... like WASHINGTON ;-) ... I think I would be wondering if MY share of the load would be lightened a little if some of those other states DID pay more union wages.

Drive through some of those states and you will see more pawn shops and "pay-day loan" signs in one block than I see in my whole town.

JS

caryalsobrook
12-07-2012, 09:39 AM
You can argue all day long which is best, RTW or Closed shop. Let each state make it's own choice, then the proof will be in the pudding. I live in a RTW state Shop, creating less competition for my state. If Mich. wants a closed shop, then let them go for it and let's see which is the best economically. thats called competition!:)

mngundog
12-07-2012, 09:40 AM
There IS QUITE a difference between states with higher union representation and those with less, RTW notwithstanding.

Compare median income. Maybe it's just me but I think good wages are a GOOD thing.

Compare tax contribution vs. tax distribution ... (those graphics Henry V provided a while back). The states with the lowest union representation (and the lowest wages) are, in general, the states that TAKE more from the government than they CONTRIBUTE. If I lived in one of those states on the other end of the spectrum ... like WASHINGTON ;-) ... I think I would be wondering if MY share of the load would be lightened a little if some of those other states DID pay more union wages.

Drive through some of those states and you will see more pawn shops and "pay-day loan" signs in one block than I see in my whole town.

JS
All I'm saying is there is enough data to make the argument either way, State by State, city by city pick your poison we can all find examples to defend our cases. I live in a non-RTW state unemployment is 5.8% I'm fine with that considering how the rest of the Country is doing. Can Unions be a job killer? Yes. Can you negotiate a better wage with one? Probably. Pros and Minuses that is all. Not a case where either side can say bang headshot. :D

JS
12-07-2012, 09:42 AM
I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................


The whole philosophy of collective bargaining is based on that simple concept ... that the group's strength comes from acting as a united body. The members DO have a say in those political decisions and the majority decision determines the action. There will always be those who disagree, but the decisions are made to benefit the body as a whole.

Unlike a company or corporation you may work for ... what say do the employees have in the political actions of the corporate PAC???

What say do you have in a government's decision to go to war???

Etc., etc., etc.

JS

JS
12-07-2012, 09:53 AM
Not down here!;-) The Oil Field has always refused to talk with unions and neither does the Medical Industry in this part of the world.

But what does a company's attitude regarding organizing have to do with RTW?

If the employees in a bargaining unit organize and are recognized by the NLRB, law requires the company to negotiate. Now the success of those negotiations is between the company and the union, but the right to work laws have no impact on anything until a contract agreement is reached.

Labor law then requires that EVERYONE in that bargaining unit has the same contractual benefits whether one belongs to the union or not. In a RTW state, someone can "freeload" and in a non-RTW state everyone must pay their share. This has no impact on the company at all.

JS

menmon
12-07-2012, 09:56 AM
Then why have a union at all?

So that folks like you that don't want to pay dues and have leverage against your employer...will earn a livable wage.

All the oil refineries and chemical plants here are union and TX is a RTW state...go figure....must be they like have an employee agency with the union. I'm sure EXXON could bust them if they wanted to

Franco
12-07-2012, 10:01 AM
But what does a company's attitude regarding organizing have to do with RTW?

If the employees in a bargaining unit organize and are recognized by the NLRB, law requires the company to negotiate. Now the success of those negotiations is between the company and the union, but the right to work laws have no impact on anything until a contract agreement is reached.

Labor law then requires that EVERYONE in that bargaining unit has the same contractual benefits whether one belongs to the union or not. In a RTW state, someone can "freeload" and in a non-RTW state everyone must pay their share. This has no impact on the company at all.

JS

Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?

mngundog
12-07-2012, 10:09 AM
Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?
Wow lived in the rust belt all my life and never had a clue it had anything to do with RTW, learn something new everyday. :D

JS
12-07-2012, 10:10 AM
Because businesses do NOT want to relocate to states where unions impede their productivity. Why do you suppose that worker union states are known as the rust belt whereas Right To Work States are attracting businesses and growing job opportunites?

But Franco, my point is that the RTW status of a particular state does not give a union an advantage in organizing a company's workers. It simply requires everyone who works under a union contract to join their union and pay the dues.

If Louisiana became non-RTW tomorrow, there would be no difference on the burden of any company, union or not.

Maybe we should just apply the RTW philosophy to the country as a whole, and I could just decide to quit paying taxes. You might be on to something here. :p

JS

road kill
12-07-2012, 10:13 AM
So that folks like you that don't want to pay dues and have leverage against your employer...will earn a livable wage.

All the oil refineries and chemical plants here are union and TX is a RTW state...go figure....must be they like have an employee agency with the union. I'm sure EXXON could bust them if they wanted to
Hey, you are ass-u-me-ing again!!

I get paid when I make something happen!!!
I'm as independent as it gets...........

"Nothing happens until the sale is made!!!":cool:

Franco
12-07-2012, 10:32 AM
But Franco, my point is that the RTW status of a particular state does not give a union an advantage in organizing a company's workers. It simply requires everyone who works under a union contract to join their union and pay the dues.
You must mean in a non-RTW state. In RTW states, workers are free.

If Louisiana became non-RTW tomorrow, there would be no difference on the burden of any company, union or not.
Yes there would. It is because we have a lack of unions that our workers enjoy high wages and benefits. If we had uniuons, we wouldn't have the industy infastructure here. It would be located ina RTW state or offshore. Unions impede productivity. Why do you suppose businesses are recluntant to build or expand in non-RTW states?

Maybe we should just apply the RTW philosophy to the country as a whole, and I could just decide to quit paying taxes. You might be on to something here. :p

I'm all for workers not paying Federal Taxes that our government just waste. And yes, we would all be better off if this country was RTW!

JS

My comments in red.

JS
12-07-2012, 10:37 AM
Franco, would you please explain what you think the Right-to-Work law entails?

Thank you.

JS

menmon
12-07-2012, 10:43 AM
Hey, you are ass-u-me-ing again!!

I get paid when I make something happen!!!
I'm as independent as it gets...........

"Nothing happens until the sale is made!!!":cool:

I'm not ass.us.ming..LOL... nothing but that someone that opposes paying union dues wants the benefit of the union's efforts without the cost.

I have never asked you about your work, but what it sounds like is that you get paid when you sell something. Food for thought...if folks are making a better wage they can buy more and you sell more thus you make more. If that is the case...unions are your friend.

Franco
12-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Franco, would you please explain what you think the Right-to-Work law entails?

Thank you.

JS

Briefly since I have to make an appointment out of the building.

RTW means that workers within that state are free from the talons of the various unions.

I'll have to engage this conversation later today, sorry.

caryalsobrook
12-07-2012, 10:56 AM
So that folks like you that don't want to pay dues and have leverage against your employer...will earn a livable wage.

All the oil refineries and chemical plants here are union and TX is a RTW state...go figure....must be they like have an employee agency with the union. I'm sure EXXON could bust them if they wanted to

Or no wage at all. Just ask the union members of Twinkies. because of the Baker's union have effectively cost the other union members THEIR JOBS!!Obviously the management and stockholders decided to liquidate their assets and lay off all the workers. They evidently believed that the return on their investment was not worth the risk, so they just quit.

Somebody will probaly buy the assets, hire new workers along with some of the former workers and start over. Many probably won't be rehired.
Unions always claim that they raise wages. Let me pose to cases and ask for a response from union advocaates. Say management calls in an employee and tells him(her) that they have been an exceptionally good employee and they intend to pay him $2.00/hour MORE that the union contract. You think the union would praise the company for rewarding one of it's members who was an exceptional employee? take another example. A member tells the company that he is an exceptionally good employee and demands $2.00/ hour more than the union contract. The company agrees that his work justifies the wage increase and WANTS to meet his demands. What do you think the union's response would be. Just asking:)

Marvin S
12-07-2012, 10:56 AM
... like WASHINGTON ;-) ... JS

To add to that we also have one of the top five spending governors :(.

road kill
12-07-2012, 10:58 AM
I'm not ass.us.ming..LOL... nothing but that someone that opposes paying union dues wants the benefit of the union's efforts without the cost.

I have never asked you about your work, but what it sounds like is that you get paid when you sell something. Food for thought...if folks are making a better wage they can buy more and you sell more thus you make more. If that is the case...unions are your friend.
In theory, perhaps.
In reality, not so much.

Our shop is non-union, the employees are compensated above the industry average.
Their collective expertise and performance is generally exceptional.
If someone needs to go, we move them, not beholding to DA UNION makes that easier!

They seem to like what I do....................:cool:

JS
12-07-2012, 10:59 AM
I'm not ass.us.ming..LOL... nothing but that someone that opposes paying union dues wants the benefit of the union's efforts without the cost.

I have never asked you about your work, but what it sounds like is that you get paid when you sell something. Food for thought...if folks are making a better wage they can buy more and you sell more thus you make more. If that is the case...unions are your friend.

Now that is a liberal conspiracy theory if I ever heard one! :shock: There is a catch here somewhere ... something you're not telling me! Nothing is that simple.

Paying good wages to lazy, low-productive union slackers is good???? Nonsense!


JS

mngundog
12-07-2012, 11:00 AM
Or no wage at all. Just ask the union members of Twinkies. because of the Baker's union have effectively cost the other union members THEIR JOBS!!Obviously the management and stockholders decided to liquidate their assets and lay off all the workers. They evidently believed that the return on their investment was not worth the risk, so they just quit.

Somebody will probaly buy the assets, hire new workers along with some of the former workers and start over. Many probably won't be rehired.
Unions always claim that they raise wages. Let me pose to cases and ask for a response from union advocaates. Say management calls in an employee and tells him(her) that they have been an exceptionally good employee and they intend to pay him $2.00/hour MORE that the union contract. You think the union would praise the company for rewarding one of it's members who was an exceptional employee? take another example. A member tells the company that he is an exceptionally good employee and demands $2.00/ hour more than the union contract. The company agrees that his work justifies the wage increase and WANTS to meet his demands. What do you think the union's response would be. Just asking:)
Do you understand how a pay schedule works?

JS
12-07-2012, 11:01 AM
Briefly since I have to make an appointment out of the building.

RTW means that workers within that state are free from the talons of the various unions.

I'll have to engage this conversation later today, sorry.

Franco, please google it before you come back and provide a little more detail.

Thanks.

JS

road kill
12-07-2012, 11:02 AM
Now that is a liberal conspiracy theory if I ever heard one! :shock: There is a catch here somewhere ... something you're not telling me! Nothing is that simple.

Paying good wages to lazy, low-productive union slackers is good???? Nonsense!


JS
Typical incfremental secular progressive play.
Your point is weak so exagerate grossly to give it validity...................:D

JS
12-07-2012, 11:10 AM
Typical incfremental secular progressive play.
Your point is weak so exagerate grossly to give it validity...................:D

Not my words. Here's a one-liner from post #20:


Unions impede productivity.

There is an abundance of evidence to the contrary, but unfortunately most here are more interested in "winning the argument" than in the facts.

JS

menmon
12-07-2012, 11:21 AM
Or no wage at all. Just ask the union members of Twinkies. because of the Baker's union have effectively cost the other union members THEIR JOBS!!Obviously the management and stockholders decided to liquidate their assets and lay off all the workers. They evidently believed that the return on their investment was not worth the risk, so they just quit.

Somebody will probaly buy the assets, hire new workers along with some of the former workers and start over. Many probably won't be rehired.
Unions always claim that they raise wages. Let me pose to cases and ask for a response from union advocaates. Say management calls in an employee and tells him(her) that they have been an exceptionally good employee and they intend to pay him $2.00/hour MORE that the union contract. You think the union would praise the company for rewarding one of it's members who was an exceptional employee? take another example. A member tells the company that he is an exceptionally good employee and demands $2.00/ hour more than the union contract. The company agrees that his work justifies the wage increase and WANTS to meet his demands. What do you think the union's response would be. Just asking:)

First of all Hostess did not fail because of the union....they let their competition run off and leave them.

Unions usually are found where companies do not reward their employees as they should....so your seniero is one that wouldn't exist anyway.

Collective bargining by design says that we are stronger as a whole than as indivduals. So maybe there are folks in the union that are more deserving, but they realize that they are better off as a whole. Because managers and owners change regularly

menmon
12-07-2012, 11:26 AM
In theory, perhaps.
In reality, not so much.

Our shop is non-union, the employees are compensated above the industry average.
Their collective expertise and performance is generally exceptional.
If someone needs to go, we move them, not beholding to DA UNION makes that easier!

They seem to like what I do....................:cool:

Sounds like a good employer that takes care of its employees, thus does not need a union. Having said that, the workers are benefiting from the union by making as much or more than the union wage...and the employer takes care of the employees so they don't organize.

caryalsobrook
12-07-2012, 11:39 AM
First of all Hostess did not fail because of the union....they let their competition run off and leave them.

Unions usually are found where companies do not reward their employees as they should....so your seniero is one that wouldn't exist anyway.

Collective bargining by design says that we are stronger as a whole than as indivduals. So maybe there are folks in the union that are more deserving, but they realize that they are better off as a whole. Because managers and owners change regularly
What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

menmon
12-07-2012, 12:00 PM
What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

You need to stop getting your information from FOX.

I'm sure that those most productive workers would go off on their own if they thought they would be better off that way.

Unions are why you have the benefits you have today....eliminate them and see what you have in a few years.

Business should be managed to benefit of all stake holders...employees, community, stockholders, etc. Companies that operate with this in mind tend to do the best and usually do not require a union.

mngundog
12-07-2012, 12:10 PM
What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.
So glad to see that the same management that bankrupted Hostess just received another $1.75 million in bonuses from bankruptcy court.

roseberry
12-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Food for thought...if folks are making a better wage they can buy more and you sell more thus you make more. If that is the case...unions are your friend.

food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?;-)

road kill
12-07-2012, 12:48 PM
food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?;-)
Yes, the part where they still pay dues to DA UNION that contributes the cash to the progressive party!!!

Just tryin' to help!:D

HPL
12-07-2012, 01:14 PM
Do you understand how a pay schedule works?

I don't, would you please explain it.

JS
12-07-2012, 01:29 PM
food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?;-)

I think you missed a lot John. Since you're talking about what COULD happen, how about brainstorming ways that COULD prevent those businesses from taking their work to cheaper labor markets and shipping the product back here to sell to greedy folks who want to buy something for nothing. But then it's pretty obvious you have bought into the "race to the bottom" mentality and see no other answer.

Real Americans Buy American regards,

JS

JS
12-07-2012, 01:40 PM
What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID

Companies do not hire workers to reward them. they hire them to make a return on their investment. Workers, union or non-union can leave anytime should their labor be more valued at another company.

By your own definition, collective bargaining rewards those less productive and punishes those more productive. I can't imagine a system that so reduces the competitiveness in a capital system.

This is the kind of crap that ruins these conversations and prevents a good exchange of ideas. If you have some inside knowledge then I apologize but I'm willing to bet you don't.

I worked for Wonder/Hostess as a route salesman/driver way back when it was Continental Baking Co. That was in the 1960s and admittedly, my knowledge is dated but I have seen so much misinformation posted about this situation it is ridiculous. I can tell you that the baking business, like a lot of the food business started on this slide as far back as then with the competition for private labels. They sold the bread at a loss just to get the best spot on the shelf and recouped it from the salesmen's commission. Just one of MANY concessions made over the years. I liked the job but saw the writing on the wall way back then.

Pretending you have the knowledge to pass judgement in a situation like this is like making a judgement on someone else's divorce. Probably a lot you don't know.

JS

menmon
12-07-2012, 01:46 PM
Let approach this from another way. Hostess can't compete with the bakers that have no problem paying the market wage, so why would the workers want to take less so that they can keep their salaries and compete. If Hostess can't pay market and compete, go to work for another baker who can as oppose to accepting much less

Franco
12-07-2012, 01:50 PM
There is an abundance of evidence to the contrary, but unfortunately most here are more interested in "winning the argument" than in the facts.

JS

I guess it just depands on where one comes from. Unions around here are scorned because our workers do just fine without them, from working conditions to wages. I don't know of any businesses that would fire a productive worker and not pay what they are worth and if the emplyee is unghappy, there is plenty of work elsewhere. On the other hand, businesses should be able to fire unproductive workers without having to deal with a union. Life is not fair or perfect but our system of Right To Work has been a good policy for us. Just look at the amount of business that want to relocate to RTW states.

road kill
12-07-2012, 01:55 PM
Let approach this from another way. Hostess can't compete with the bakers that have no problem paying the market wage, so why would the workers want to take less so that they can keep their salaries and compete. If Hostess can't pay market and compete, go to work for another baker who can as oppose to accepting much less
Is this the same opinion you have of GM, or is that somehow different?:cool:

Franco
12-07-2012, 02:01 PM
food for thought.....if the folks who make the "better wage" are producing the product you are selling, it will obviously cost more. as a result your competitor will then make it in china much less expensively.

you wont sell jack doo doo and the domestic factory with the "better wage" will close. but the workers will not notice their factory closed until their paychecks are not direct deposited since they are out front at the plant gates marching with signs, on strike, not working, not producing and keeping scabs out.

did i miss anything in my economis analysis above?;-)

You also left out the part where the Union dues is sent to promote Political hacks (politicians) that will write laws giving the unions more power so that they can continue to steal from the company and tax payers and ensure that the politician (hack) gets relected.;-)

menmon
12-07-2012, 02:03 PM
This is not opinion...it is fact....difference workers had reason to sweat it out...their life savings was invested with GM

HPL
12-07-2012, 02:03 PM
I didn't think so, and no if you don't understand it by now, you never will. :D

Don't be a jackass. I am and have always been a one man operation. No payroll, just me and my wife. So, if you want folks like me to have an idea of about what you are referencing, you need to make things a bit more clear.

HPL
12-07-2012, 02:09 PM
Real Americans Buy American regards,

JS

Sad to say that they will mostly be sitting in empty houses in the dark. It is very difficult to find Made in America these days even if you are willing to pay more.

mngundog
12-07-2012, 02:16 PM
Don't be a jackass. I am and have always been a one man operation. No payroll, just me and my wife. So, if you want folks like me to have an idea of about what you are referencing, you need to make things a bit more clear.
Sorry, I didn't know it was a serious question. With a union contract and a salary schedule in place the manager probably wouldn't be able to give an individual employee that pay raise (the contract was already negotiated). I work at a non-union company and we also you a pay schedule for which we would not deviate from, although we could. Salary schedules are far from perfect but in some cases they work very well.

JS
12-07-2012, 02:23 PM
Sad to say that they will mostly be sitting in empty houses in the dark. It is very difficult to find Made in America these days even if you are willing to pay more.

Sad to say you are correct. That was a bumper sticker on my car 40 years ago. People laughed at us when we said there would be no jobs someday. Especially the young kids.

When Nike moved their shops out, we said, "don't buy them". The kids smirked and said, "kiss my azz ... they're cool shoes".

And so it went. The rest of the shoe companies watched and followed suit. Even New Balance is gone now. I still buy them cause they held out the longest.

Those kids are 50 years old now.

What's amazing is folks still want to take up that same argument.

Oh well. I've got mine ... to Hell with it.

JS

caryalsobrook
12-07-2012, 02:52 PM
This is the kind of crap that ruins these conversations and prevents a good exchange of ideas. If you have some inside knowledge then I apologize but I'm willing to bet you don't.

I worked for Wonder/Hostess as a route salesman/driver way back when it was Continental Baking Co. That was in the 1960s and admittedly, my knowledge is dated but I have seen so much misinformation posted about this situation it is ridiculous. I can tell you that the baking business, like a lot of the food business started on this slide as far back as then with the competition for private labels. They sold the bread at a loss just to get the best spot on the shelf and recouped it from the salesmen's commission. Just one of MANY concessions made over the years. I liked the job but saw the writing on the wall way back then.

Pretending you have the knowledge to pass judgement in a situation like this is like making a judgement on someone else's divorce. Probably a lot you don't know.

JS
Well, you got one thing correct. You are right, I don't have any inside knowlege. I just take a little time to listen to the news, Fox, MSNBC, CNN business to mention a few. Fact, Hostess did have contracts signed by all the other unions. Fact THEY DID NOT TAKE BANKRUPSEY, THEY JUST QUIT. Fact, news reported speculation that Hostess name and equipment would be bought and twinkies would again be made. No inside information just the news.

PS
I love your line about buying American. A friend of mine Jack Kelton(he doesn't mund my using his name), worked initially for Firestone and eventually Bridgestone-Firestone for 35 years and was a member of the United Steel-Workers(I always why not United Rubber-Workers. When he retired, he was recognized by the union as a loyal member of the union, with a plaque showing the union's appreciaation for his membership. When he took the plaque home to show his wife, she looked on the back where emblazened were the words "MADE IN CHINA". Of course on the front were the words, "presented by the united Steel-Workers. She was furious, and took the plaque back to the union to express her anger at the union not buying American. Their response was that they were spending union members' money and had to find the best deal possible. She returned the plaque. This story reminds me of the song "Look For The Union Label", Evidently, that only applies to non-union people. You can form your own opinion as to the hypocracy here.

As to passing judgement, none was passed. I just reported the news. I will admit that hypocracy is in fact a judgement but I left that for you to form your own opinion.

Marvin S
12-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Sad to say you are correct. That was a bumper sticker on my car 40 years ago. People laughed at us when we said there would be no jobs someday. Especially the young kids.

When Nike moved their shops out, we said, "don't buy them". The kids smirked and said, "kiss my azz ... they're cool shoes".

And so it went. The rest of the shoe companies watched and followed suit. Even New Balance is gone now. I still buy them cause they held out the longest.

Those kids are 50 years old now.

What's amazing is folks still want to take up that same argument.

Oh well. I've got mine ... to Hell with it.

JS

Makes me unhappy - they used to have a canvas tenny that was awesome - But I just do without - & shop the hell out of the Farmers Markets :cool: -

But I'll pass one on to you - who apparently lost interst in the Union thread - By UPS today I received my wife's Xmas present - A throw from Swan's Island (in itself an interesting story) - avoid the state sales tax so don't pay tribute to the public employees union - not shown on their website as it is undyed - You can still compete with a niche product - just not in a union state with the highest minimum wage in the nation :(.

HPL
12-07-2012, 11:48 PM
Sorry, I didn't know it was a serious question. With a union contract and a salary schedule in place the manager probably wouldn't be able to give an individual employee that pay raise (the contract was already negotiated). I work at a non-union company and we also you a pay schedule for which we would not deviate from, although we could. Salary schedules are far from perfect but in some cases they work very well.

Thanks, that's kinda what I thought. Sounds like the way the auto company shops price repairs (go look in a book and say "book says job will take so long", so you get charged for that time, even if there is an efficient mechanic who knows his stuff and can get it done faster.

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2012, 01:05 PM
It occurs to me that the unions addressed issues that existed when the began ... but do the reasons for their existence still exist today? Ironically, we now seem to have Federal regulations and agencies that are supposedly there to protect the workers WRT working conditions. Are either the unions or those regulations & agencies superfluous?

mngundog
12-08-2012, 02:22 PM
It occurs to me that the unions addressed issues that existed when the began ... but do the reasons for their existence still exist today? Ironically, we now seem to have Federal regulations and agencies that are supposedly there to protect the workers WRT working conditions. Are either the unions or those regulations & agencies superfluous?
If you mean like be required to show up 20 minutes prior to shift or to stay 15 minutes after shift without getting paid, or working 5-6 hour without a break, that stuff is still happening. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

RetrieverNation
12-08-2012, 02:55 PM
It occurs to me that the unions addressed issues that existed when the began ... but do the reasons for their existence still exist today? Ironically, we now seem to have Federal regulations and agencies that are supposedly there to protect the workers WRT working conditions. Are either the unions or those regulations & agencies superfluous?

Good point and it appears a lot of the middle men need to or already are getting pushed out of the work pipeline these days. If you ever look at a detailed line item breakdown of where everything attached to a union mans wage goes it is mind boggling. Its not just the union, the funds and the man, there are countless others who have figured out how to get their hands in there as well. With all the pimping of the mans wage going on and watching the union bubble burst it makes you wonder if any of it is really necessary or just a lot of middle players trying to keep their slice of pie.

murral stark
12-08-2012, 05:16 PM
I can only speak to my industry. Unions are very much needed. The govt agencies there to protect workers from bad conditions are useless. Most people that get wrongfully terminated typically don't have the financial means to hire an attorney, not to mention all the hoops someone has to go through to even get it heard by a judge. The union is their attorney that stands up for them and keeps unscrupulous employers at bay. Most employers don't want you to live comfortably. They only give you enough wages and benefits to keep you hungry and coming back. typically in my industry, even with a union, there is a .15 per hour raise, but the cost of insurance goes up and eats up any raise they get. It's a vicious cycle.

Marvin S
12-08-2012, 05:31 PM
If you mean like be required to show up 20 minutes prior to shift or to stay 15 minutes after shift without getting paid, or working 5-6 hour without a break, that stuff is still happening. If you have a problem with it, don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Do you believe that when the shift starts the employee should be ready to start working? At their work station?

Cody Covey
12-08-2012, 05:57 PM
The first part is illegal unless you are refering to what Marvin S is talking about. An employee should be ready to start work at the time they are scheduled. Breaks are a state by state requirement. No one at my work takes a break at all throughout the day except lunch...we are too busy working.

mngundog
12-08-2012, 06:35 PM
Do you believe that when the shift starts the employee should be ready to start working? At their work station?
I believe your pay should begin at the time you are required to be at work, so if you are told to be at work at 7pm or face reprimand then that is when your workday begins. We we're required to attend a shift briefing that took place 15 before shift began, add to that a series of security points that could add another 10 minutes to get to the time clock.

mngundog
12-08-2012, 07:02 PM
The first part is illegal unless you are refering to what Marvin S is talking about. An employee should be ready to start work at the time they are scheduled. Breaks are a state by state requirement. No one at my work takes a break at all throughout the day except lunch...we are too busy working.
Yes it was illegal, my point being it should take a $7 million dollar settlement (my employer), or a union to get a company to adhere to fair labor laws but often that is what it takes.

zeus3925
12-08-2012, 07:27 PM
I might almost acknowledge your point IF unions limited themselves to negotiating with employers and weren't politically active, but since individual members don't get to specify how their monies are distributed to the various political parties, candidates, and causes, afraid I simply can't agree. If the unions would distribute their political contributions proportional to he leanings of individual members (which wouldn't be that difficult), then, again, I could almost go with your statement, but................


As a stockholder I never get to vote where my corporate contributions go either. Unions will support candidates that support labor. The Grand Obtuse Party is anti-union and very little money flows in their direction.

HPL
12-09-2012, 04:02 AM
As a stockholder I never get to vote where my corporate contributions go either. Unions will support candidates that support labor. The Grand Obtuse Party is anti-union and very little money flows in their direction.

Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

murral stark
12-09-2012, 05:22 AM
Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

There seems to be a double standard here. The rebloodlicans cry to high heaven for the "leeches" that get all of the entitlements, yet it's ok for workers that don't want to pay union dues to get the same benefits and wages of the dues paying members. I would consider those workers "leeches".

caryalsobrook
12-09-2012, 08:29 AM
There seems to be a double standard here. The rebloodlicans cry to high heaven for the "leeches" that get all of the entitlements, yet it's ok for workers that don't want to pay union dues to get the same benefits and wages of the dues paying members. I would consider those workers "leeches".
I would consider those workers that are unreliable, irresponsible and in general do poor work, AND "EXPECT" the same income as those workers that are reliable and responsible and in general do a good job, TO BE THE LEECHES, regardless whether they are union or non-union.

Marvin S
12-09-2012, 10:12 AM
I believe your pay should begin at the time you are required to be at work, so if you are told to be at work at 7pm or face reprimand then that is when your workday begins. We we're required to attend a shift briefing that took place 15 before shift began, add to that a series of security points that could add another 10 minutes to get to the time clock.

Been there, done that, but not for long. I believe Wally World has one of those suits going & rightfully so. But I belleve the individual has a responsibility to look out for himself, so should make sure they have employment options. When the best or only job in town is that company, then folks don't have many options. Companies look for those types of towns :(, but that's reality.

My first employment when I graduated from college was at a mine that had portal to portal working conditions. The philosophy of that company was: 1) to expect people to get their work done in the time allotted, 2) if folks were unable to do that, to look at what they were being asked to do, 3) If what they were being asked to do was reasonable, to counsel them, if that didn't work to reasssign them, which included termination. I thought that to be a good philosophy which I practiced both as a manager & a worker.

My last employment was as a lead engineer at a major company. I spent many years as the top rated engineer in my skill code, yet was criticized for being out the door at the end of the day on time unless there was a major issue, which happens occasionally. One of my bosses made that comment to me about the comments other bosses had made about me during rating procedures. My answer to him was "they are usually the bosses who show up late after the challenges for the day have been handled, want to be part of the decision that has already been made, & then want to visit about it on my time. If that's the only criticism then I'm home free :)." I didn't care what these bosses thought as I was confident in my abilities & knew I could move in a minute within the company - I just really liked what I did, it was challenging, never routine, & it kinda fun facing down someone who believes themselve to be a big shot. Didn't have to do it often, just often enough to let those folks know they were in the big leagues :). There are a lot of jerks in management, just as there are employees who will take advantage, that's life & one has to be able to work around those issues. The guy who runs F was a 3rd level manager in our organization, loved the sound of his own voice, but could not go out on the floor & tell the shop guys what needed to be done without having to consult someone else. That's why he is at F :cool:.

We were expected to keep our skills up to date on our own time, if there were expenses the company paid for some. We were responsible for being there, our own meals, & transport. I never had an issue with that as those new skills belonged to me.

JS
12-09-2012, 02:32 PM
Where this analogy falls completely apart is that no one forces you to be a stockholder, and you buy stock, you don't pay dues, but in non-right to work states, you join the union, pay dues, or you don't work. That has the smell of coercion to me.

This statement is only PARTLY true, and could be misleading to those who don't understand the law.

To clarify: In a non-RTW state, workers are required to join the union and pay dues ONLY IF the majority of their co-workers in their bargaining unit have voted ... in a federally monitored, secret ballot election ... to be represented by the union. Being a non-RTW state does NOT mean that all workers must be unionized. If an employees' effort to organize fails, there will be no union and no one will be required to pay union dues. For example; in the state of Washington where 21% of the labor force is organized, only that 21% are required to pay dues. The law concerns only those workers who are represented by a union contract and has NO impact on the other 79% of workers in that state nor ANY of the employers.

I know this is elementary, but it is clear from some of the posts that many here do not understand the reality of non-RTW. This principle of majority rule applies to many facets of our everyday lives. It is fair and equitable and should be viewed as unreasonable only to those who have a basic aversion to unions in general.

(BTW, that same law REQUIRES ... in any state ... that ALL employees in the bargaining unit receive all the benefits of the union contract regardless of their support or non-support of the union.)

In my experience, this is far less an issue to workers involved than it is to those outsiders posting here who seem to hate unions and anything related. I live in a right-to-work state. At the peak of membership in my local union, we had over 12,000 members and the number of those who declined to join and pay dues never reached more than 50 +/-.

JS

Blackstone
12-09-2012, 05:19 PM
In Michigan, there have always been plenty of non-union shops. You are not required to join a union just because the state is not a RTW state unless your job is covered by a union.

Marvin S
12-09-2012, 05:51 PM
In my experience, this is far less an issue to workers involved than it is to those outsiders posting here who seem to hate unions and anything related. I live in a right-to-work state. At the peak of membership in my local union, we had over 12,000 members and the number of those who declined to join and pay dues never reached more than 50 +/-.
JS

In my experience, which I would venture to say is a lot more varied & less biased than yours, I have seen the good that unions do & the bad. I would venture to say that the bad they do, such as their blind support of the Democratic party, is not one of the issues they would like folks to talk about too much. Why do they support the D's, because that same blind support creates legislation that they cannot win in the public marketplace :(.


In Michigan, there have always been plenty of non-union shops. You are not required to join a union just because the state is not a RTW state unless your job is covered by a union.

What happens is in states such as ours, the major unions are concentrated in the population centers, which translates into votes, generally Democrat. In our own state, the moderate Republican candidate for Governor was pre-eminent in his qualifications, yet managed to lose to the biggest buffoon to date that has been elected governor. Which is saying a lot as our present governor ranks in the bottom 5 of all the nations governors. What they do do is make sure the unions share in the governance of the state at a great cost to the citizens.

Not everyone is as politically aware as most of us who post here on POTUS & even though we disagree, I believe that if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows :). Now there are exceptions on this forum, I just don't believe you are one of those.

JS
12-09-2012, 07:21 PM
In my experience, which I would venture to say is a lot more varied & less biased than yours, I have seen the good that unions do & the bad. I would venture to say that the bad they do, such as their blind support of the Democratic party, is not one of the issues they would like folks to talk about too much. Why do they support the D's, because that same blind support creates legislation that they cannot win in the public marketplace :(.

Whoa ... labor, in general is anything BUT secretive in our political activity and very vocal in support of the candidates that get our endorsements. Our involvement in government goes far beyond monetary contributions, and we are not ashamed of the positions we take.

Why does our support most often go to the Democrats? That's simple ... the Democrat platform is more concerned with the issues of the working class people in general and, as such, is friendlier to the labor movement in particular. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong United States in every way and believes that a strong blue collar economy is the best way to maintain that. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong business climate and realizes that if the "company" is not doing well, neither will the workers. (That's a "duh", despite all the talk about unions trying to put companies out of business. :shock:) We also believe that the greatest way any company stimulates an economy is on Friday afternoon. And we do not believe companies hire people just because they have extra money in the bank nor lay them off if they NEED them to produce product. Those employment decisions are based on NEED for the product and the better the workers are doing, the more product will be sold.

Of course labor doesn't get everything we want from the Democrats. No one gets everything they want in our type of government. But you still put your support with those who will do the best as you see it and lobby for those thing you think are most critical.

And regarding the "good and the bad" unions do ... absolutely I would never argue that unions are all perfect. Any more than I would argue that businesses are all corrupt. Some union leadership is self serving and irresponsible just like some managers. And some make stupid mistakes. I still have not forgiven the Teamsters for supporting Nixon just because Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoffa! :razz:






Not everyone is as politically aware as most of us who post here on POTUS & even though we disagree, I believe that if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows :). Now there are exceptions on this forum, I just don't believe you are one of those.

I'm not so sure if everyone on POTUS is that politically aware or if they just like to argue. ;-) It's hard to believe that some of the more prolific posters have a very broad base of information. I don't pretend to be a "know-it-all" and I certainly don't deny anyone else their own opinions. But I do keep in touch with the various "extreme" news sources ... Fox News and MSNBC ... as well as the mainstream and Public Radio. (don't read the internet tabloid rags) I also have quite a diverse network of friends and acquaintances with whom I enjoy good, productive exchanges. Over the past summer and fall, I knocked on around 1000 doors and discussed politics with folks of all persuasions. Only a very small percentage of them express some of the opinions heard here. It is my strong opinion that the majority here limit their sources to the far right only, and back up their opinions with personal anecdotes and regurgitated sound bites, many of which are not based in fact or only partially true.

I DO, however agree with you that "if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows". I also agree with you that "there are exceptions on this forum". :p Some people have likened RTF to a tailgate session ... well, now and then at a tailgater, there's a clown that is a real PITA. Always attacking, never offering anything constructive and it gets so tiresome you just say, "see ya later" and walk away. I feel a lot of that here. I suppose some feel the same about me.

JS

Marvin S
12-09-2012, 07:34 PM
Believe it or not, I still have not forgiven the Teamsters for supporting Nixon just because Bobby Kennedy was going after Hoffa! :razz: JS

Had Bobby Kennedy survived to be the D's nominee, he would have received our vote. Since that time the d's have never put up a nominee deserving :(.

coachmo
12-09-2012, 08:55 PM
So murral if nonunion workers aka "leaches" as you call them are caught drinking beer and smoking pot at lunch like union workers and are fired do they get their jobs back through arbitration like union workers? Just wondering.

mngundog
12-09-2012, 09:29 PM
So murral if nonunion workers aka "leaches" as you call them are caught drinking beer and smoking pot at lunch like union workers and are fired do they get their jobs back through arbitration like union workers? Just wondering.
My current employer and former employer both had a drug/alcohol policy in place that would give the employee a choice between treatment or termination in such an event, both companies are non-union. On that topic the local school district just fired four employees the fifth is on payed leave because of the "Veterans Preference Act".

coachmo
12-09-2012, 09:53 PM
Well thank you for clearing that up. So were the 4 employees of the school district union members?

mngundog
12-09-2012, 10:21 PM
Well thank you for clearing that up. So were the 4 employees of the school district union members?
Don't believe so, tech guys, I'm sure if they were union they'd be on paid leave also till the process got completed, details were a little vague.

Marvin S
12-09-2012, 11:41 PM
Whoa ... labor, in general is anything BUT secretive in our political activity and very vocal in support of the candidates that get our endorsements. Our involvement in government goes far beyond monetary contributions, and we are not ashamed of the positions we take.

Why does our support most often go to the Democrats? That's simple ... the Democrat platform is more concerned with the issues of the working class people in general and, as such, is friendlier to the labor movement in particular. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong United States in every way and believes that a strong blue collar economy is the best way to maintain that. Believe it or not, labor wants a strong business climate and realizes that if the "company" is not doing well, neither will the workers. (That's a "duh", despite all the talk about unions trying to put companies out of business. :shock:) We also believe that the greatest way any company stimulates an economy is on Friday afternoon. And we do not believe companies hire people just because they have extra money in the bank nor lay them off if they NEED them to produce product. Those employment decisions are based on NEED for the product and the better the workers are doing, the more product will be sold.

Of course labor doesn't get everything we want from the Democrats. No one gets everything they want in our type of government. But you still put your support with those who will do the best as you see it and lobby for those thing you think are most critical.

While I don't believe unions try to put companies out of business - they push very hard to get preferential treatment. My beef is not with the private sector unions though they can skirt the line at times, it's the public sector unions that have no one across the table from them who has any interest in who will be the eventual payer.

I have outlined in red the part I find humorous - I'm sure you have been properly indoctrinated to say that in your morning prayer - but I heartily disagree. In a perfect world maybe, but ours is not a perfect world.

The Bakers union obviously thought Hostess was doing well :-P. & the Boeing MACHINISTS obviously thought they had the inside track on all future work :-P:-P.


I'm not so sure if everyone on POTUS is that politically aware or if they just like to argue. ;-) It's hard to believe that some of the more prolific posters have a very broad base of information. I don't pretend to be a "know-it-all" and I certainly don't deny anyone else their own opinions. But I do keep in touch with the various "extreme" news sources ... Fox News and MSNBC ... as well as the mainstream and Public Radio. (don't read the internet tabloid rags) I also have quite a diverse network of friends and acquaintances with whom I enjoy good, productive exchanges. Over the past summer and fall, I knocked on around 1000 doors and discussed politics with folks of all persuasions. Only a very small percentage of them express some of the opinions heard here. It is my strong opinion that the majority here limit their sources to the far right only, and back up their opinions with personal anecdotes and regurgitated sound bites, many of which are not based in fact or only partially true.

I DO, however agree with you that "if we sat down face to face most of us could come to many points of agreement long before we came to blows". I also agree with you that "there are exceptions on this forum". :p Some people have likened RTF to a tailgate session ... well, now and then at a tailgater, there's a clown that is a real PITA. Always attacking, never offering anything constructive and it gets so tiresome you just say, "see ya later" and walk away. I feel a lot of that here. I suppose some feel the same about me.

JS

Other than some who are obviously deficient mentally or experience wise, I believe for the most part POTUS folks have something to say that is meaningful. One just has to be able to decipher the meaning as many are not wordsmiths. My sources are the print media of all types - I subscribe to the New Yorker (a lot of BS but also many great articles), American Spectator, National Review, a host of financial publications: Forbes, Fortune, Kiplingers watch CNBC & sports on the tube & read a lot of books including many from CATO of which we are supporters, along with the Heritage Foundation, the Salvation Army & Hillsdale's Imprimis newsletter. I do watch the weather on the MSM, beyond that they have little to offer, their willingness to go into the tank for the present POTUS after their constant atacks of GWB leaves a rational person in serious doubt of their impartiality.

mngundog
12-09-2012, 11:53 PM
The execs at Hostess must still think the company is doing well, just have themselves $1.8 million in bonuses, can't imagine how a company with that type of management could go bankrupt. :D

Marvin S
12-10-2012, 12:02 AM
The execs at Hostess must still think the company is doing well, just have themselves $1.8 million in bonuses, can't imagine how a company with that type of management could go bankrupt. :D

They are winding the company down. Their knowledge of the value of the company may more than compensate creditors for the salaries received. Surprisingly, even the execs of failed companies are in demand, the bonuses are to secure their services until the wind down is under control. If I'm not mistaken some hourly folks are still drawing a paycheck, should they also be dropped as I'm sure they are being compensated for not going into the labor market :confused:.

mngundog
12-10-2012, 12:05 AM
They are winding the company down. Their knowledge of the value of the company may more than compensate creditors for the salaries received. Surprisingly, even the execs of failed companies are in demand, the bonuses are to secure their services until the wind down is under control. If I'm not mistaken some hourly folks are still drawing a paycheck, should they also be dropped as I'm sure they are being compensated for not going into the labor market :confused:.
I missed the part were the hourly employees were being given bonuses in the 100k range. :confused:
This is what took place just prior to management telling their employees they needed to take recessions.

Brian Driscoll, CEO, around $750,000 to $2,550,000.
Gary Wandschneider, EVP, $500,000 to $900,000.
John Stewart, EVP, $400,000 to $700,000.
David Loeser, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Kent Magill, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
Richard Seban, EVP, $375,000 to $656,256.
John Akeson, SVP, $300,000 to $480,000.
Steven Birgfeld, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Martha Ross, SVP, $240,000 to $360,000.
Rob Kissick, SVP, $182,000 to $273,008.
Quality management, the union is obviously to blame.......folly.

M&K's Retrievers
12-10-2012, 12:44 AM
I missed the part were the hourly employees were being given bonuses in the 100k range. :confused:
This is what took place just prior to management telling their employees they needed to take recessions.

Quality management, the union is obviously to blame.......folly.

Unlike the auto industry, the unions and the employees don't own the company.

caryalsobrook
12-10-2012, 06:10 AM
The execs at Hostess must still think the company is doing well, just have themselves $1.8 million in bonuses, can't imagine how a company with that type of management could go bankrupt. :D
Correct me if I am wrong, but Hostess has not taken bankruptsy. They have simply decided to cease operations and sell the assets. No creditors have failed to be paid. If they have taken bankruptsy, then kindly tell me what chapter of bankruptsy they have taken.

paul young
12-10-2012, 08:50 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but Hostess has not taken bankruptsy. They have simply decided to cease operations and sell the assets. No creditors have failed to be paid. If they have taken bankruptsy, then kindly tell me what chapter of bankruptsy they have taken.

chapter 11.......



http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hostess-bankruptcy-judge-moves-forward-liquidation-process/story?id=17775866

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578165813739413332.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20121209/BUSINESS/212090333/Hostess-workers-picking-up-pieces

http://www.examiner.com/article/hostess-executives-bankruptcy-judge-awards-1-8-million-bonuses-workers-angry


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-hostess-bidders-idUSBRE8AK15J20121122

Marvin S
12-10-2012, 09:11 AM
I missed the part were the hourly employees were being given bonuses in the 100k range. :confused:
This is what took place just prior to management telling their employees they needed to take recessions.

Quality management, the union is obviously to blame.......folly.

I guess you missed the part on one of these threads where I did not defend management. But even those who are bad managers have some value in a wind down :eek:. As for the employees, they could have pushed for an ESOP :). I don't blame the union, they bluffed, & apparently lost.

JS
12-10-2012, 10:20 AM
What a joke. First of all, Hostess had signed contracts with all the other unions of the company, but could not come to an agreement with the baker's union. Had they done so, HOSTESS UOLD STILL BE IN BUSINESS and would still be competing with it's competidors. Competition did not shut down Hostess. All the other unions of Hostess did not shut down Hostess. THE BAKER'S UNION DID.
.....



This above is the part of your post I was challenging when I said what I did:


This is the kind of crap that ruins these conversations and prevents a good exchange of ideas. If you have some inside knowledge then I apologize but I'm willing to bet you don't.

I worked for Wonder/Hostess as a route salesman/driver way back when it was Continental Baking Co. That was in the 1960s and admittedly, my knowledge is dated but I have seen so much misinformation posted about this situation it is ridiculous. I can tell you that the baking business, like a lot of the food business started on this slide as far back as then with the competition for private labels. They sold the bread at a loss just to get the best spot on the shelf and recouped it from the salesmen's commission. Just one of MANY concessions made over the years. I liked the job but saw the writing on the wall way back then.

Pretending you have the knowledge to pass judgement in a situation like this is like making a judgement on someone else's divorce. Probably a lot you don't know.

JS

You do not have enough knowledge of the situation to make that statement. You do not know the whole story of what the issues were in this round of negotiations. Only a sketchy brief from a news source who got a sketchy brief from a carefully worded press release. Nor do you know anything of the history of the company/union relations or what concessions had taken place in previous negotiations.

At least, I worked there many, many years ago and even I would not profess to know everything that led to the closure. But I CAN say that it has been coming for a long, long time. The cost of labor is only one part of the cost of doing business and to say the union caused Wonder/Hostess to shut down ... or that unions in general cause businesses to fail ... is an overstatement.

Many businesses flourish with a union workforce and many non-union businesses fail without a union to blame.


Well, you got one thing correct. You are right, I don't have any inside knowlege. I just take a little time to listen to the news, Fox, MSNBC, CNN business to mention a few. Fact, Hostess did have contracts signed by all the other unions. Fact THEY DID NOT TAKE BANKRUPSEY, THEY JUST QUIT. Fact, news reported speculation that Hostess name and equipment would be bought and twinkies would again be made. No inside information just the news.

.....



JS

caryalsobrook
12-10-2012, 10:51 AM
chapter 11.......



http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hostess-bankruptcy-judge-moves-forward-liquidation-process/story?id=17775866

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578165813739413332.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20121209/BUSINESS/212090333/Hostess-workers-picking-up-pieces

http://www.examiner.com/article/hostess-executives-bankruptcy-judge-awards-1-8-million-bonuses-workers-angry


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/22/us-hostess-bidders-idUSBRE8AK15J20121122

I was wwrong. I don't know whether I heard an earlier version that later changed or just misunderstood. I did read the ABC article completely which was interesting. While short, it did show that such situations can be very complicated. The union striking was the largest but the only one not agreeing to a new contract. Evidently, the teamsters union disagreed with the union striking and what appeaars to me, accused the Baker's union of striking but not requesting all it's members to strike. However it expected the teamsters union to honor the strike. The company is privately owned and I guess they are can pay bonuses as they choose so long as bankruptcy judge agrees. I suspect only so long as enough assets are left to pay creditors. What a mess. Actually I would blame gov. rules and regulations for causing such a complicated problem. Just my thoughts.

paul young
12-10-2012, 12:08 PM
I was wwrong. I don't know whether I heard an earlier version that later changed or just misunderstood. I did read the ABC article completely which was interesting. While short, it did show that such situations can be very complicated. The union striking was the largest but the only one not agreeing to a new contract. Evidently, the teamsters union disagreed with the union striking and what appeaars to me, accused the Baker's union of striking but not requesting all it's members to strike. However it expected the teamsters union to honor the strike. The company is privately owned and I guess they are can pay bonuses as they choose so long as bankruptcy judge agrees. I suspect only so long as enough assets are left to pay creditors. What a mess. Actually I would blame gov. rules and regulations for causing such a complicated problem. Just my thoughts.

It's a Helluva mess. In my opinion everyone involved shares some of the blame for it. I do think it's reprehensible that the court would allow nearly $2 million in bonuses to be distributed to senior management members at this time, but i'm equally sure it's legal......

The misuse of pension funds makes me want to puke. If it could happen to them, it could happen to me.-Paul

Uncle Bill
12-10-2012, 05:52 PM
Am I wrong in thinking today's unions are not the same as the one I was a member of in the 50's. While ours was a small shop, and we eventually voted it out...I do not recall any union of that time doing much more than just carrying a picket sign around the entrance of the building the business occupied. The NW Bell building on 5th and 3rd in Mpls comes to mind, where my wife was involved for a few years. But this type of activity would have been unheard of in that era, or at least in our region.

UB
Michigan Madness: Thousands Plan To Lay Siege On State Capitol On Tuesday Over Right-To-WorkBy: LaborUnionReport (http://www.retrievertraining.net/users/laborunionreport/) (Diary (http://www.retrievertraining.net/laborunionreport/))


On Tuesday, unions, left-wing radicals and their allies are planning to lay siege to Michigan’s state capitol on Tuesday to protest the state lawmakers’ move to give workers the right to work (http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/06/unions-get-ugly-as-michigan-is-set-to-become-24th-right-to-work-state-in-nation/) for unionized companies without being compelled to pay union fees or be fired.

On a Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/events/121775524650254/) dedicated to a “Day of Action” on Tuesday, as of Sunday night, over 2,400 2,500 activists have pledged to show up to protest. That number is expected to grow by Tuesday.


http://www.redstate.com/files/2012/12/Day-of-Action-at-Michigan-State-Capitol-Building-620x304.png (http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/09/michigan-madness-thousands-plan-to-lay-siege-on-state-capitol-on-tuesday-over-right-to-work-bill/day-of-action-at-michigan-state-capitol-building/)
In addition to unions vowing even bigger protests (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20121209/BUSINESS/312090092/michigan-right-to-work-unions-protests?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1) than last week, OccupyMichigan is also promoting (https://twitter.com/OccupyMichigan/status/277889933165854721) the Day of Action.
The Lansing Fire Department has posted (http://local.nixle.com/alert/4926836/) a list of likely street closures.
On Saturday, according to ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/unions-prepare-protest-michigan-capitol-17915222#.UMVIRYM0V8E), more than 200 union activists attended a training for Tuesday.

Between chants, cheers and applause, organizers warned those at the training to be prepared for insults and obstruction Tuesday in Lansing. The volunteers lined up on opposite sides of a long hall at UAW Local 600 in suburban Detroit and took turn turns portraying protesters and union critics.
“Humanize the situation. Be clear with your intentions. Introduce yourself,” national labor activist Lisa Fithian, of Austin, Texas, said through a megaphone. “They’re going to do everything they can to criminalize us.”
Fithian is a career community organizer (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2521) known for her organizing of protests on behalf of a broad range of Marxist groups, ranging from ACORN and Code Pink to Occupy Wall Street.

As noted last year (http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/10/18/meet-ows-crisis-creator-lisa-fithian-the-radical-extremist-helping-to-occupyamerica/):

To say that Lisa Fithian (http://organizingforpower.wordpress.com/movement-history/about-lisa/) is just a paid-professional protester would be to undersell her radical accomplishments. True, she’s received compensation from the SEIU (http://www.unionfacts.com/payeeDetail/Service_Employees/837689) and the SEIU’s labor federation Change to Win (http://www.unionfacts.com/payeeDetail/CHANGE_TO_WIN/696291) as a consultant. However, her war on the free market goes well beyond that. Last year, Fithian helped the UAW shut down Bank of America branches (http://www.uaw.org/articles/uaw-activists-force-bank-america-branch-close) and, now, is helping the #OccupyWallSt protesters wage their occupations all across America.
As the founder of today’s American labor movement said nearly a century ago:

“I want to urge devotion to the fundamentals of human liberty – the principles of voluntarism. No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion. If we seek to force, we but tear apart that which, united, is invincible….I want to say to you, men and women of the American labor movement, do not reject the cornerstone upon which labor’s structure has been builded – but base your all upon voluntary principles and illumine your every problem by consecrated devotion to that highest of all purposes – human well being in the fullest, widest, deepest sense.” — Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor (http://www.nrtwc.org/pdfs/Gompers.pdf)

As unions and their allies lay siege to the Michigan capitol on Tuesday, they’re exposing their true motives: Today’s unions are not about freedom of choice, they are about power and politics.

On Tuesday, Samuel Gompers’ principles of voluntarism will once again be cast aside as unions and their allies protest to continue their right to force payment from workers.

murral stark
12-10-2012, 06:32 PM
So murral if nonunion workers aka "leaches" as you call them are caught drinking beer and smoking pot at lunch like union workers and are fired do they get their jobs back through arbitration like union workers? Just wondering.

That was my point exactly. If the establishment is represented by a union, the non-union/"leeches" get the same representation and benefits as the dues paying members, they just don't contribute dues to receive said representation and benefits. Just like the people that get the entitlements that reblodlicans complain about. Yet they don't complain about the people receiving benefits and representation and wages without paying for them because they don't want to pay dues. those same people that don't want to pay the dues, will be the first ones running to the shop steward when they get in a pinch and need representation. the shop steward is required to represent all employees because there is a union contract in place.

coachmo
12-10-2012, 09:47 PM
Murral, so let me get this straight. I work in a field that has a significant (that means a bunch) number of union workers and I decide to not join the union so in your mind that makes me a leech. That is some twisted and skewed logic for sure. You somehow equate this with someone not working and receiving entitlements. Where do you get this stuff from? You're a classic!

murral stark
12-10-2012, 10:03 PM
Murral, so let me get this straight. I work in a field that has a significant (that means a bunch) number of union workers and I decide to not join the union so in your mind that makes me a leech. That is some twisted and skewed logic for sure.

do you receive the same wages and benefits, plus representation from the union if you were up for disciplinary action? If so, yes, you are a leech. If you are not getting the same as the union dues paying members, then you are not a leech. If you want to drink the beer, help pay for the keg. If you don't want to help pay for the keg, don't expect any beer for free. Isn't that the GOP mindset, nobody gets a handout without contributing something? Or is that only when it suits your needs for the day?

mngundog
12-10-2012, 10:15 PM
Murral, so let me get this straight. I work in a field that has a significant (that means a bunch) number of union workers and I decide to not join the union so in your mind that makes me a leech. That is some twisted and skewed logic for sure. You somehow equate this with someone not working and receiving entitlements. Where do you get this stuff from? You're a classic!
If you haven't been paying attention many on here equate union workers (the working guys) as leaches.

murral stark
12-10-2012, 10:41 PM
Murral, so let me get this straight. I work in a field that has a significant (that means a bunch) number of union workers and I decide to not join the union so in your mind that makes me a leech. That is some twisted and skewed logic for sure. You somehow equate this with someone not working and receiving entitlements. Where do you get this stuff from? You're a classic!

You are no different than someone getting a handout/entitlement. the taxpayers pay taxes so the people can get their "entitlements". Union members pay union dues so someone negotiates wages and benefits, so the people that don't pay the dues, can get their "entitlements". where do you get your stuff from? You will never understand because you are one of those people that lives by the mantra, "do as I say, not as I do."

murral stark
12-10-2012, 10:44 PM
Murral, so let me get this straight. I work in a field that has a significant (that means a bunch) number of union workers and I decide to not join the union so in your mind that makes me a leech. That is some twisted and skewed logic for sure. You somehow equate this with someone not working and receiving entitlements. Where do you get this stuff from? You're a classic!
FYI, I know what significant means smart a@#!!! You go by "coachmo" what do you coach?

coachmo
12-10-2012, 11:47 PM
You have mentioned on several occasions that you have difficulty with "big" words and fancy language so I was just trying to help. You are correct that I am every bit of a smart@#* as you are a dumb@#*.

murral stark
12-11-2012, 12:00 AM
You have mentioned on several occasions that you have difficulty with "big" words and fancy language so I was just trying to help. You are correct that I am every bit of a smart@#* as you are a dumb@#*.

What do you coach? I am guessing probably c-squad of some sort.

M&K's Retrievers
12-11-2012, 12:53 AM
You are no different than someone getting a handout/entitlement. the taxpayers pay taxes so the people can get their "entitlements". Union members pay union dues so someone negotiates wages and benefits, so the people that don't pay the dues, can get their "entitlements". where do you get your stuff from? You will never understand because you are one of those people that lives by the mantra, "do as I say, not as I do."


FYI, I know what significant means smart a@#!!! You go by "coachmo" what do you coach?


What do you coach? I am guessing probably c-squad of some sort.

Apparently you cannot keep from returning to your roots. You come here and apologize on several occasions for being a jerk only to do it again. Just like a breaking dog. You just can't help it.

I said "SIT" regards,

coachmo
12-11-2012, 08:58 AM
Murral, first off I have no idea what you meant by c-squad in your previous post. I am still amazed by simpletons like yourself that prescribe to the liberal ideology proclaiming to be open-minded, open-armed and tolerant to the views of others; however, you vehemently attack people that disagree with your views while accusing them of the same. Your rhetoric is predictable and often amusing but shows your true color. Your kind is nothing more than closed-minded, hatemongers wrapped in a cloak of "change". Your posts are feeble attempts to show you're "really, really smart" but I'm thinking it's really just your way of hiding some other glaring deficiency.

caryalsobrook
12-11-2012, 09:03 AM
I am sitting in my camper on my first laptop, pirating off my neighbor's internet. When I came here in the middle of Oct. it was so peaceful not having a computer but so agravating not able to do some minimal things. On one hand,being not able to access this forum was a blessing but I did miss most of the people on it. I really believe that people will say things on this forum that they would never even consider saying face to face. People are generally not so insulting.

When I leave here, I am going to Alexandria to train for the Grand in April. Franco lives no more than 100 miles from where I will be and we have already made plans to see each other. Can't wait for him to convince me that the Gold standard will solve all our fiscal problelms:p Having treated 10's of thousands of patients while in practice, I always felt that by far most were good hardworking, honest, polite people. I can't believe those on this forum are any different. Something about this medium brings out the worst in people and that is sad. RK and I intend to meet at the Grand in Iowa in the fall. That I also look forward to. There are so many people in this game that I have met that are such good people that have helped me so much, far too many to name.

I intend to run my two girls in the Grand in Texas in April. Anybody in either area, let me know and maybe we can meet.

I guess my girls are the players and I am the coach. For sure, they are better players than I am the coach.

huntinman
12-11-2012, 09:06 AM
I am sitting in my camper on my first laptop, pirating off my neighbor's internet. When I came here in the middle of Oct. it was so peaceful not having a computer but so agravating not able to do some minimal things. On one hand,being not able to access this forum was a blessing but I did miss most of the people on it. I really believe that people will say things on this forum that they would never even consider saying face to face. People are generally not so insulting.

When I leave here, I am going to Alexandria to train for the Grand in April. Franco lives no more than 100 miles from where I will be and we have already made plans to see each other. Can't wait for him to convince me that the Gold standard will solve all our fiscal problelms:p Having treated 10's of thousands of patients while in practice, I always felt that by far most were good hardworking, honest, polite people. I can't believe those on this forum are any different. Something about this medium brings out the worst in people and that is sad. RK and I intend to meet at the Grand in Iowa in the fall. That I also look forward to. There are so many people in this game that I have met that are such good people that have helped me so much, far too many to name.

I intend to run my two girls in the Grand in Texas in April. Anybody in either area, let me know and maybe we can meet.

I guess my girls are the players and I am the coach. For sure, they are better players than I am the coach.

Good luck at the Grands Cary... You should have a ball...

road kill
12-11-2012, 09:14 AM
I am sitting in my camper on my first laptop, pirating off my neighbor's internet. When I came here in the middle of Oct. it was so peaceful not having a computer but so agravating not able to do some minimal things. On one hand,being not able to access this forum was a blessing but I did miss most of the people on it. I really believe that people will say things on this forum that they would never even consider saying face to face. People are generally not so insulting.

When I leave here, I am going to Alexandria to train for the Grand in April. Franco lives no more than 100 miles from where I will be and we have already made plans to see each other. Can't wait for him to convince me that the Gold standard will solve all our fiscal problelms:p Having treated 10's of thousands of patients while in practice, I always felt that by far most were good hardworking, honest, polite people. I can't believe those on this forum are any different. Something about this medium brings out the worst in people and that is sad. RK and I intend to meet at the Grand in Iowa in the fall. That I also look forward to. There are so many people in this game that I have met that are such good people that have helped me so much, far too many to name.

I intend to run my two girls in the Grand in Texas in April. Anybody in either area, let me know and maybe we can meet.

I guess my girls are the players and I am the coach. For sure, they are better players than I am the coach.

Our goals are:
#1--To qualify for the fall grand
#2--Make it through 2 days

We are already training for that goal.
WE need 4 or 5 more UH passes and then 4 or 5 Finished passes.

We will be training every weekend after we use up our game farm birds, which will be the finale' on New Years day.
We will put out 20 birds just for Elvis.

Our emphasis is on steadiness, steadiness, steadiness!
The rest is child's play.

It would be an honor to meet any of youse running.
I do indeed speak the same way in person as on here.

I will also be working the Grand in fall, as one of my clubs will be helping host the event.

Any of you ever in the neighborhood that want to train, I have the grounds and equipment (the water is a little hard though!)

huntinman
12-11-2012, 09:19 AM
Our goals are:
#1--To qualify for the fall grand
#2--Make it through 2 days

We are already training for that goal.
WE need 4 or 5 more UH passes and then 4 or 5 Finished passes.

We will be training every weekend after we use up our game farm birds, which will be the finale' on New Years day.
We will put out 20 birds just for Elvis.

Our emphasis is on steadiness, steadiness, steadiness!
The rest is child's play.

It would be an honor to meet any of youse running.
I do indeed speak the same way in person as on here.

I will also be working the Grand in fall, as one of my clubs will be helping host the event.

Any of you ever in the neighborhood that want to train, I have the grounds and equipment (the water is a little hard though!)

Great time to teach a few big memory blinds. Come back and run them in the summer when you have water. Used to do that in Alaska often.

Buzz
12-11-2012, 10:34 AM
Great time to teach a few big memory blinds. Come back and run them in the summer when you have water. Used to do that in Alaska often.


I do that here. Angie told me that it doesn't translate over to water work in the summer. I believe it does... This winter all my dogs will be in warmer climes...

huntinman
12-11-2012, 10:47 AM
I do that here. Angie told me that it doesn't translate over to water work in the summer. I believe it does... This winter all my dogs will be in warmer climes...

I learned it back in the late 80's from Len Ferucci of the Chena River Surprise line and many other well known FC/AFC's...

My first trial dog was a very good blind running dog and I have to say I thought he remembered those blinds... Maybe he would have remembered them anyway... Len thought it worked with his dogs...

BonMallari
12-11-2012, 11:08 AM
I do that here. Angie told me that it doesn't translate over to water work in the summer. I believe it does... This winter all my dogs will be in warmer climes...

Clint ran blinds on the frozen ponds when he lived in Kentucky, and would revisit them in the spring...He had a dog named Stormy which was out of NAFC CNFC Pipers Pacer ...got a second in an Open with him...so I guess it worked out well....and I am fairly sure he learned the trick from Roy McFall, who also taught it to Dr Ferucci

caryalsobrook
12-11-2012, 11:13 AM
Am worried about stealing thread but I do enjoy hearing some of your experiences and plans for your dogs. Maybe not for this forum or even for the retriever forum. I h talked with Franco, RK and Buzz and Hunt about their dogs and plans via PM's but that is really cumbersome. I would like to know what all of you are doing with your dogs and plans. It also gives me the opportunity to plan training and test trips and look you up.

Any suggestions, I am game;-):)

road kill
12-11-2012, 11:27 AM
Clint ran blinds on the frozen ponds when he lived in Kentucky, and would revisit them in the spring...He had a dog named Stormy which was out of NAFC CNFC Pipers Pacer ...got a second in an Open with him...so I guess it worked out well....and I am fairly sure he learned the trick from Roy McFall, who also taught it to Dr Ferucci

Up here in the"FROZEN TUNDRA" we do us some ice fishing.

It is a great time to do handling drills.
The ice is not glare ice, it usually has a crust or some snow, so it's not really slippery.

Walking Baseball, cold blinds (pun intended) etc.

JS
12-11-2012, 11:51 AM
I want to get back to the topic of this thread, but first ... the HRC Grand is in Iowa next year? Where? I've only seen one HRC test. I used to train with some HRC guys around here and went out to work one of their tests. Would like to go check out the Grand.

Anyway, just an FYI about paying union dues, to put it in perspective for those who think it’s an unreasonable imposition.

Years ago, we (UAW) tied our dues rates to wages earned, so that we no longer have to deal with adjusting dues periodically as costs go up (or down). Our members pay 2 hours of earnings per month. So the more you earn, the higher your dues. The exception to this is if you work less than (if I remember correctly) 20 hours in the month, then dues are waived. This pertains to those who are off work sick or injured or laid off, etc.

So if you’re paid a flat rate of $18.50/hr, your dues that month will be $37. If your flat rate is $21.25. you will pay $42.50. Production workers ... those who work directly machining and producing parts, assembly, testing, etc., as opposed to maintenance, material handling, trucking, etc. ... are paid according to an incentive system (piecework, so to speak) so their hourly earnings will fluctuate, but their dues are still 2 hours of their average earnings for that month.

So what do they get for that? You can spend the rest of your day researching that if you like but here is one BLS link that indicates union wages are roughly $150/week higher than non-union wages for comparable work.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030623ar01p1.htm

Other sources will show numbers up to $200/week difference.

So, assuming $150 - &200/week, the guy working with a union contract is earning around $7,500 - $10,000 MORE per year. If he/she wants to refuse to pay $40 or so per MONTH for that benefit then, YES, I will call him a leech. :twisted: Or, to coin another term, a part of the “Something-For-Nothing crowd”.

Our members happen to think it’s reasonable too, as we have a miniscule number who choose to “scab”.

Now, for those who believe good wages are bad for the country, that’s another issue altogether, with all sorts of arguments either way. This thread is about Right-to-Work laws and paying your share of the cost of your contract.

JS

JS
12-11-2012, 12:00 PM
So as to not suggest that the almighty $$$ is the only thing a union is concerned with, I remind you there are literally hundreds of working conditions spelled out in a labor agreement. And remember, a contract of any kind WORKS BOTH WAYS. It’s an agreement negotiated by 2 parties that defines the rights AND the responsibilities of EACH. Both the company AND the workers. And in the case of labor contracts, it is always the practice that all rights and decisions that are not stipulated in the agreement are the discretion of management.

Without exception, all those “work rules” contained in union contracts, have come about as the result of a past disregard for the working conditions of the workers. If workers are satisfied with the terms of their employment and believe it is equitable, there is no need to write language addressing it.

As an example off the top of my head; we once had a common practice of notifying employees on very short notice, that we would be working on Saturday. Because of some ‘unforeseen circumstance” the supervisor could come to you at 2 PM on Friday afternoon and inform you the line would be running tomorrow and you WILL be here. No concern that you may have planned to take the kids camping for the weekend or that one of them had a Saturday morning football game. This was never an everyweek occurrence but it happened way too often. Furthermore, when you got there on Saturday morning, you would often find there was only enough material available to work a couple hours and were then sent home! Made the employees really happy and willing to go the extra mile for the company! ;-)

We raised the issue in negotiations (that’s referred to as a “union demand” :razz:). Long story short, the company insisted they needed the flexibility to respond to “short-notice production needs”. We dropped it.

For the next three years (3-year contract) the practice continued and the next negotiations it was a higher priority issue. Again, the company dug in their heels on the right to schedule production as they saw fit, but at the eleventh hour, we did get a letter of agreement pledging that they would “endeavor” to plan further ahead and minimize these last minute notifications. (I have not forgotten that ratification meeting! Not popular with the rank & file! :razz:)

The situation did improve a little but was still an issue. We processed a number of grievances during the contract period ... basically just to document the problem, as the “pledge” letter was weak and not binding. At the NEXT negotiations, we were successful in getting resolution that notification of weekend overtime must be given by the preceding Wednesday and that the overtime would first be offered as voluntary to the most senior qualified employee and go down the list until they filled the need. If they got to the bottom of the seniority list and still needed more people, they could start back up the list and assign it as mandatory.

There were further restrictions on mandatory weekend overtime but, guess what??? Once the language was in the contract, the issue went away! Supervisors discovered they could easily avoid the problem by doing their job and properly planning ahead. Rarely was there any Saturday production after that ... (wonder how much that saved the company in overtime pay because the managers involved, had to start doing their job). And when there WAS an unforeseen need, there was never any problem getting enough qualified workers to volunteer. It has never been a hindrance to the company and employees can plan a family weekend just like anyone else.

And this is one single, simple benefit that the freerider gets right along with the rest of the members. There are hundreds.

JS

RetrieverNation
12-11-2012, 12:16 PM
So, assuming $150 - &200/week, the guy working with a union contract is earning around $7,500 - $10,000 MORE per year. If he/she wants to refuse to pay $40 or so per MONTH for that benefit then, YES, I will call him a leech. :twisted: Or, to coin another term, a part of the “Something-For-Nothing crowd”.

Our members happen to think it’s reasonable too, as we have a miniscule number who choose to “scab”.

Now, for those who believe good wages are bad for the country, that’s another issue altogether, with all sorts of arguments either way. This thread is about Right-to-Work laws and paying your share of the cost of your contract.

JS

Just insert piece work into the equation and my bet is any hardworking man can beat that difference through his hard work and dedication. As far as the benefits go, give the union man a choice to either buy the unions plans or give his money back to find his own. Why force him to buy the unions health and pension, especially when you can easily see both are commonly riddled with fraud and embezzlement. Compete, don't force!

mjh345
12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
So as to not suggest that the almighty $$$ is the only thing a union is concerned with, I remind you there are literally hundreds of working conditions spelled out in a labor agreement. And remember, a contract of any kind WORKS BOTH WAYS. It’s an agreement negotiated by 2 parties that defines the rights AND the responsibilities of EACH. Both the company AND the workers. And in the case of labor contracts, it is always the practice that all rights and decisions that are not stipulated in the agreement are the discretion of management.

Without exception, all those “work rules” contained in union contracts, have come about as the result of a past disregard for the working conditions of the workers. If workers are satisfied with the terms of their employment and believe it is equitable, there is no need to write language addressing it.

As an example off the top of my head; we once had a common practice of notifying employees on very short notice, that we would be working on Saturday. Because of some ‘unforeseen circumstance” the supervisor could come to you at 2 PM on Friday afternoon and inform you the line would be running tomorrow and you WILL be here. No concern that you may have planned to take the kids camping for the weekend or that one of them had a Saturday morning football game. This was never an everyweek occurrence but it happened way too often. Furthermore, when you got there on Saturday morning, you would often find there was only enough material available to work a couple hours and were then sent home! Made the employees really happy and willing to go the extra mile for the company! ;-)

Welcome back Jack

We raised the issue in negotiations (that’s referred to as a “union demand” :razz:). Long story short, the company insisted they needed the flexibility to respond to “short-notice production needs”. We dropped it.

For the next three years (3-year contract) the practice continued and the next negotiations it was a higher priority issue. Again, the company dug in their heels on the right to schedule production as they saw fit, but at the eleventh hour, we did get a letter of agreement pledging that they would “endeavor” to plan further ahead and minimize these last minute notifications. (I have not forgotten that ratification meeting! Not popular with the rank & file! :razz:)

The situation did improve a little but was still an issue. We processed a number of grievances during the contract period ... basically just to document the problem, as the “pledge” letter was weak and not binding. At the NEXT negotiations, we were successful in getting resolution that notification of weekend overtime must be given by the preceding Wednesday and that the overtime would first be offered as voluntary to the most senior qualified employee and go down the list until they filled the need. If they got to the bottom of the seniority list and still needed more people, they could start back up the list and assign it as mandatory.

There were further restrictions on mandatory weekend overtime but, guess what??? Once the language was in the contract, the issue went away! Supervisors discovered they could easily avoid the problem by doing their job and properly planning ahead. Rarely was there any Saturday production after that ... (wonder how much that saved the company in overtime pay because the managers involved, had to start doing their job). And when there WAS an unforeseen need, there was never any problem getting enough qualified workers to volunteer. It has never been a hindrance to the company and employees can plan a family weekend just like anyone else.

And this is one single, simple benefit that the freerider gets right along with the rest of the members. There are hundreds.

JSStick around Jack your input is always insightful

mngundog
12-11-2012, 12:22 PM
Just insert piece work into the equation and my bet is any hardworking man can beat that difference through his hard work and dedication. As far as the benefits go, give the union man a choice to either buy the unions plans or give his money back to find his own. Why force him to buy the unions health and pension, especially when you can easily see both are commonly riddled with fraud and embezzlement. Compete, don't force!
I have never been employed at a non union shop that allowed me to pick my own plan, why should a union shop be any different?

RetrieverNation
12-11-2012, 12:30 PM
So as to not suggest that the almighty $$$ is the only thing a union is concerned with, I remind you there are literally hundreds of working conditions spelled out in a labor agreement. And remember, a contract of any kind WORKS BOTH WAYS. It’s an agreement negotiated by 2 parties that defines the rights AND the responsibilities of EACH. Both the company AND the workers. And in the case of labor contracts, it is always the practice that all rights and decisions that are not stipulated in the agreement are the discretion of management.

Without exception, all those “work rules” contained in union contracts, have come about as the result of a past disregard for the working conditions of the workers. If workers are satisfied with the terms of their employment and believe it is equitable, there is no need to write language addressing it.

As an example off the top of my head; we once had a common practice of notifying employees on very short notice, that we would be working on Saturday. Because of some ‘unforeseen circumstance” the supervisor could come to you at 2 PM on Friday afternoon and inform you the line would be running tomorrow and you WILL be here. No concern that you may have planned to take the kids camping for the weekend or that one of them had a Saturday morning football game. This was never an everyweek occurrence but it happened way too often. Furthermore, when you got there on Saturday morning, you would often find there was only enough material available to work a couple hours and were then sent home! Made the employees really happy and willing to go the extra mile for the company! ;-)

We raised the issue in negotiations (that’s referred to as a “union demand” :razz:). Long story short, the company insisted they needed the flexibility to respond to “short-notice production needs”. We dropped it.

For the next three years (3-year contract) the practice continued and the next negotiations it was a higher priority issue. Again, the company dug in their heels on the right to schedule production as they saw fit, but at the eleventh hour, we did get a letter of agreement pledging that they would “endeavor” to plan further ahead and minimize these last minute notifications. (I have not forgotten that ratification meeting! Not popular with the rank & file! :razz:)

The situation did improve a little but was still an issue. We processed a number of grievances during the contract period ... basically just to document the problem, as the “pledge” letter was weak and not binding. At the NEXT negotiations, we were successful in getting resolution that notification of weekend overtime must be given by the preceding Wednesday and that the overtime would first be offered as voluntary to the most senior qualified employee and go down the list until they filled the need. If they got to the bottom of the seniority list and still needed more people, they could start back up the list and assign it as mandatory.

There were further restrictions on mandatory weekend overtime but, guess what??? Once the language was in the contract, the issue went away! Supervisors discovered they could easily avoid the problem by doing their job and properly planning ahead. Rarely was there any Saturday production after that ... (wonder how much that saved the company in overtime pay because the managers involved, had to start doing their job). And when there WAS an unforeseen need, there was never any problem getting enough qualified workers to volunteer. It has never been a hindrance to the company and employees can plan a family weekend just like anyone else.

And this is one single, simple benefit that the freerider gets right along with the rest of the members. There are hundreds.

JS

Right to work does not take away the right to organize. Why do we assume that the employee has to pay the union for this? Maybe the employees could bid out collective bargaining services and hire a firm to negotiate a contract for them. Not sure how this is freeriding when they only have one choice. Maybe they are protesting instead of freeriding?

RetrieverNation
12-11-2012, 12:33 PM
I have never been employed at a non union shop that allowed me to pick my own plan, why should a union shop be any different?
your non-union shop only offered one plan but there were countless plans available to you and there still are. Its your choice to take advantage of the employers plan or not!

mngundog
12-11-2012, 12:37 PM
your non-union shop only offered one plan but there were countless plans available to you and there still are. Its your choice to take advantage of the employers plan or not!
My choice was to go with one of my employers plans or not at all, I don't believe unions shops mandate their employees pay for a plan if they don't want one, am I wrong?

JS
12-11-2012, 12:46 PM
Just insert piece work into the equation and my bet is any hardworking man can beat that difference through his hard work and dedication. As far as the benefits go, give the union man a choice to either buy the unions plans or give his money back to find his own. Why force him to buy the unions health and pension, especially when you can easily see both are commonly riddled with fraud and embezzlement. Compete, don't force!

Did you miss the part that says our production workers work on a peicework plan? It's not without faults either, but it is a moneymaker for both the company and the worker. Some work however, does not lend itself well to that kind if measurement.

Regarding benefits, we negotiate health coverage with the company as part of the agreement. How they provide it is their business decision. Ours happens to be a "Cadillac" plan from United Health care (for which I am very appreciative). Try to do better than that on your own. :D As far as pension ... again, we negotiate the benefit; management handles the money. They send it to me each month in a large, brown paper bag! :cool:

JS

JS
12-11-2012, 12:48 PM
Right to work does not take away the right to organize. Why do we assume that the employee has to pay the union for this? Maybe the employees could bid out collective bargaining services and hire a firm to negotiate a contract for them. Not sure how this is freeriding when they only have one choice. Maybe they are protesting instead of freeriding?

You're serious??? :) Good luck with that!

JS

JS
12-11-2012, 12:50 PM
Stick around Jack your input is always insightful

Hey Marc, I just check in once in a while out of curiosity and can't keep my mouth shut! You know me ... always bobbin' & weavin'. :cool:

RetrieverNation
12-11-2012, 12:55 PM
I don't believe unions shops mandate their employees pay for a plan if they don't want one, am I wrong?

you are correct, the union mandates it if the shop is signatory and the union shop is just along for the ride. Weeeee!

road kill
12-11-2012, 02:18 PM
Let's see if I got this;

If a guy doesn't pay to belong to the union, but gets the benefits, he is a "scab" or a "leech."
But if a guy doesn't pay taxes, but gets the benefits, he is a ????????????:cool:

coachmo
12-11-2012, 02:39 PM
RK, I'm thinking bum would be a good name for tax dodgers but then again according to murral all of us non-union employees that work in fields where others elect to be in a union are leeches. Another fitting name for non-taxpayers according to recent history would be to refer to them as democrats i.e., Geithner, Daschle, Rangel and the list goes on. Just saying.

mngundog
12-11-2012, 03:10 PM
RK, I'm thinking bum would be a good name for tax dodgers but then again according to murral all of us non-union employees that work in fields where others elect to be in a union are leeches. Another fitting name for non-taxpayers according to recent history would be to refer to them as democrats i.e., Geithner, Daschle, Rangel and the list goes on. Just saying.
I don't know exactly what your case is but in situations where non-unions workers in the same job are able to piggy back on the pay class and benefits negotiated by union members, leeches would be appropriate.

Franco
12-11-2012, 03:36 PM
Am worried about stealing thread but I do enjoy hearing some of your experiences and plans for your dogs. Maybe not for this forum or even for the retriever forum. I h talked with Franco, RK and Buzz and Hunt about their dogs and plans via PM's but that is really cumbersome. I would like to know what all of you are doing with your dogs and plans. It also gives me the opportunity to plan training and test trips and look you up.

Any suggestions, I am game;-):)

It has been exceptionally warm so far this season. I am still wearing either short sleeved shirts or light weight long sleeves. The second split of the duck season opens Saturday and the biggest problem is the mosquitos. I just bought more pads for the Thermacell and bug spray. A good freeze would take care of everything but nothing in the near future according to the Weather Channel. Last Winter was one of the warmest on record.

I have access some some good training grounds just north of Lafayette in Arnaudville and Carencro. And, I can assure you the food is much better around here than redneck Alexandria, La. ;-)

JS
12-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Let's see if I got this;

If a guy doesn't pay to belong to the union, but gets the benefits, he is a "scab" or a "leech."
But if a guy doesn't pay taxes, but gets the benefits, he is a ????????????:cool:

Pretty much the same generally speaking. There are extenuating circumstances.

At least we know for sure the guy getting the union benefits DOES have the ability to pay. In the case of the other guy who's getting the government benefits, he may or may not have the ability to pay. If he doesn't, the question then becomes, "why not?". If it's just because he's lazy, then he's definitely a leech. But there are a lot of other reasons someone may not have the ability to pay and I believe the "lazy" label is improperly applied in many, many cases without knowing the facts.

That clown on your Judge Judy clip is NOT your typical welfare recipient any more so than Bernie Madoff is your typical businessman. :cool:

JS

JS
12-11-2012, 04:11 PM
RK, I'm thinking bum would be a good name for tax dodgers but then again according to murral all of us non-union employees that work in fields where others elect to be in a union are leeches. Another fitting name for non-taxpayers according to recent history would be to refer to them as democrats i.e., Geithner, Daschle, Rangel and the list goes on. Just saying.

coachmo, just to clarify ... it's not whether you work in a certain field ... it's whether you work in the bargaining unit covered by the union contract. If you're not sure what a bargaining unit is, look it up.

Can't do ALL your work for you regards,

JS

road kill
12-11-2012, 04:59 PM
Pretty much the same generally speaking. There are extenuating circumstances.

At least we know for sure the guy getting the union benefits DOES have the ability to pay. In the case of the other guy who's getting the government benefits, he may or may not have the ability to pay. If he doesn't, the question then becomes, "why not?". If it's just because he's lazy, then he's definitely a leech. But there are a lot of other reasons someone may not have the ability to pay and I believe the "lazy" label is improperly applied in many, many cases without knowing the facts.

That clown on your Judge Judy clip is NOT your typical welfare recipient any more so than Bernie Madoff is your typical businessman. :cool:

JS

Enlighten us, describe "your typical welfare recipient.":cool:

JS
12-11-2012, 05:37 PM
Enlighten us, describe "your typical welfare recipient.":cool:

A mother whose husband has abandoned her and has no way to care for her children while working.

A family with inadequate health insurance who has incurred extreme medical expenses and consequently spent themselves into bankruptcy.

A family who has lost their job with no possibility of finding new work in their area. (and does not have the resources to relocate)

That same family who has found new work but at an earnings level too low to make ends meet.

A veteran, returned from a war with an emotional condition that prevents him from getting or holding a job.

An elderly couple whose prior employer has reneged on their pension and their Social Security has dwindled to the point it no longer meets their needs.

A guy who retired with a good financial plan but decided to take up field trialing as a hobby. (just checking to see if you're reading)

A single mother attending school in hopes of bettering herself and becoming self sufficient.

And I haven’t even mentioned “corporate welfare”. Let’s not get started on that.

None of these are “typical”. There is no typical. Hard times is an equal opportunity situation.

JS

murral stark
12-11-2012, 06:11 PM
Apparently you cannot keep from returning to your roots. You come here and apologize on several occasions for being a jerk only to do it again. Just like a breaking dog. You just can't help it.

I said "SIT" regards,

I returned fire. He smarted off first. turn about is fair play.

murral stark
12-11-2012, 06:19 PM
Murral, first off I have no idea what you meant by c-squad in your previous post. I am still amazed by simpletons like yourself that prescribe to the liberal ideology proclaiming to be open-minded, open-armed and tolerant to the views of others; however, you vehemently attack people that disagree with your views while accusing them of the same. Your rhetoric is predictable and often amusing but shows your true color. Your kind is nothing more than closed-minded, hatemongers wrapped in a cloak of "change". Your posts are feeble attempts to show you're "really, really smart" but I'm thinking it's really just your way of hiding some other glaring deficiency.

You go by the name "Coachmo" that leads me to believe you are some type of coach. C-squad is 3rd string just for clarification. I was merely trying to explain how welfare recipients that som many here call leeches, are no different than people that are working in a shop that is represented by a union. the dues paying members have chosen to have the union negotiate for them. the people that choose not to be part of the union nor pay dues, reap the same wages and benefits as the dues paying members. They are leeches just like the welfare recipients.

caryalsobrook
12-11-2012, 06:56 PM
A mother whose husband has abandoned her and has no way to care for her children while working.

A family with inadequate health insurance who has incurred extreme medical expenses and consequently spent themselves into bankruptcy.

A family who has lost their job with no possibility of finding new work in their area. (and does not have the resources to relocate)

That same family who has found new work but at an earnings level too low to make ends meet.

A veteran, returned from a war with an emotional condition that prevents him from getting or holding a job.

An elderly couple whose prior employer has reneged on their pension and their Social Security has dwindled to the point it no longer meets their needs.

A guy who retired with a good financial plan but decided to take up field trialing as a hobby. (just checking to see if you're reading)

A single mother attending school in hopes of bettering herself and becoming self sufficient.

And I haven’t even mentioned “corporate welfare”. Let’s not get started on that.

None of these are “typical”. There is no typical. Hard times is an equal opportunity situation.

JS

Just got back from buying propane for the camper and dogs. Spent more on the dogs than me. Didn't really have a formal finantial plan but knew that I had to save like crazy since there would be no pension(always wondered if pensions were taxable and really don't know). I knew that my income would go down by the amount that I made working less SS and I'm sure I spend more on the dogs than that check. Still pay tax on my retirement income just like I paid tax on my practice income. When I bought a truck, topper, camper,4-wheeler and all the other equipment to train them and my friends questioned the cost, I used to reply that my son bought them for me. That would just be less that he would inherit. Now I just tell them that it is less that the Gov. will inherit in death taxes.:razz:

coachmo
12-11-2012, 10:20 PM
JS, just for the record I don't need you to do any work for me but you may want to help some of your union brothers. They are probably overworked, underpaid and definitely under appreciated. I mean how can anyone live on paltry union wages in most cases. Additionally, please don't offer any help with English language vocabulary or word meanings either. Murral, keep it coming it doesn't bother me.

murral stark
12-11-2012, 10:36 PM
JS, just for the record I don't need you to do any work for me but you may want to help some of your union brothers. They are probably overworked, underpaid and definitely under appreciated. I mean how can anyone live on paltry union wages in most cases. Additionally, please don't offer any help with English language vocabulary or word meanings either. Murral, keep it coming it doesn't bother me.

Do you receive "union scale" where you work and choose not to pay dues? Maybe you should go in and tell the boss that you don't want the union wages and beneifts because you don't pay union dues. You don't want to be part of the union so you should get paid different than the dues paying members do. Let us know how that works out for ya.

Franco
12-11-2012, 10:50 PM
After 46 in the workforce, all I can say is I am glad that I have never had to belong to a union that set my pay or benefits. I have always been paid strickly on my productivity and negotiated my own benefits and that is they way I like it!

coachmo
12-11-2012, 11:06 PM
Hey murral, I am the boss!

murral stark
12-11-2012, 11:10 PM
Hey murral, I am the boss!

Salary or hourly? Do you own the company? Funny thing is, I am in management as well. I just have never forgotten where I came from and hold to my roots. I still make management decisions, but I do things fairly.

coachmo
12-11-2012, 11:20 PM
Salary. You make huge, broad assumptions about people. You have no idea about my roots or how I treat the employees that I work with.

murral stark
12-12-2012, 12:18 AM
Salary. You make huge, broad assumptions about people. You have no idea about my roots or how I treat the employees that I work with.

If you are salaried like me,you cannot belong to the union if you wanted to. You made it sound like you were hourly and didn't want to pay union dues, but you wanted to reap the benefits. I didn't mean it to sound like you didn't treat your people fairly. when I left the union ranks to move into management, I swore I would never forget what it was like to be on that line. I don't understand why people hate the unions so badly. I have worked with several managers over the years that have never been on the line to understand what it is like. they have been programmed in their college classes that the unions are evil and the people on the line are greedy if they want to have union representation. That's where the us against them mentality comes from. during negotiations, if the company would be honest about whether they are making money or not, the union would be more receptive to concessions to keep things going. In my industry, it was always said that we had to take concessions because the company was losing money. When in fact, they weren't losing money at all, they just weren't making as much as they wanted to make. Our negotiators asked on more than one occasion asked to see the financials to verify they were in the red. They wouldn't open the books, yet the ceo and high ups were reaping huge bonuses. I find it hard to believe that you pay someone a bonus, and keep them employed, if they are running your company and it is losing money.

Gerry Clinchy
12-12-2012, 12:32 AM
I really don't have any experience with unions, but trying to look at this objectively.

It appears that once a company has a union, it always stays there. Does the union ever have to be subjected to a "confidence" vote? Like, every so many years, do the workers get to re-affirm that they want this union to represent them? For example, if a group of workers felt that the union was doing a poor job of representation; or if there was abuse of funds, etc., the workers might want a change ... either to another union or to no union.

For a long time (I don't know if it is still so), there were no unions in Japan, but workers were treated well. There were rarely layoffs or job-changing. We now have companies like Toyota here in the US who do not have a union for workers.

What I haven't seen in these discussions is any admission that unions can have flaws in the way they are managed ... just like companies can have flawed management.

When talking of the fact that union wages are higher than non-union wages, that can also mean the products those companies produce will cost more than products made by non-union companies. Isn't that part of he problem with why jobs then go overseas ... because even though Americans might prefer to buy American-made products, they opt for foreign-made products due to price combined with quality. If the US-made product is superior, and the price is within reason v. the foreign-made product, it will still be competitive in the market.

There is a market for higher quality goods. Toyota cars are competitive, even though often more expensive, due to their perceived durability. US-made cars lost their perceived quality over time. That's one example, and certainly not perfect, as more recently even Toyota has had quality-control issues it would appear.

It is often cited that American workers are among the most productive workers in the world. I wouldn't dispute this. If we start there, then we might also assume they work hard to do a good job at what they do. Would it not follow that US products would then have a high quality? Is it the companies who manage the business who use methods that produce lower quality for their price point, and the workers simply do what they are told to do, even if it means producing an inferior product?

I tend to think that smaller companies are more likely to use their workers' ingenuity in improving product quality or features. Large companies seem to have many layers between the worker and where the management decisions are made, and they lose the ability to tap into the workers' experience with the systems and materials. Can large unions similarly lose touch with their worker members?

Locally, we have an Amazon distribution center. It made headlines in the local papers when workers were suffering through the summer in an incredibly hot building. There was public pressure for Amazon to improve its working conditions.

I'd be interested in hearing the varied opinions on this.

murral stark
12-12-2012, 12:42 AM
I really don't have any experience with unions, but trying to look at this objectively.

It appears that once a company has a union, it always stays there. Does the union ever have to be subjected to a "confidence" vote? Like, every so many years, do the workers get to re-affirm that they want this union to represent them? For example, if a group of workers felt that the union was doing a poor job of representation; or if there was abuse of funds, etc., the workers might want a change ... either to another union or to no union.

For a long time (I don't know if it is still so), there were no unions in Japan, but workers were treated well. There were rarely layoffs or job-changing. We now have companies like Toyota here in the US who do not have a union for workers.

What I haven't seen in these discussions is any admission that unions can have flaws in the way they are managed ... just like companies can have flawed management.

When talking of the fact that union wages are higher than non-union wages, that can also mean the products those companies produce will cost more than products made by non-union companies. Isn't that part of he problem with why jobs then go overseas ... because even though Americans might prefer to buy American-made products, they opt for foreign-made products due to price combined with quality. If the US-made product is superior, and the price is within reason v. the foreign-made product, it will still be competitive in the market.

There is a market for higher quality goods. Toyota cars are competitive, even though often more expensive, due to their perceived durability. US-made cars lost their perceived quality over time. That's one example, and certainly not perfect, as more recently even Toyota has had quality-control issues it would appear.

It is often cited that American workers are among the most productive workers in the world. I wouldn't dispute this. If we start there, then we might also assume they work hard to do a good job at what they do. Would it not follow that US products would then have a high quality? Is it the companies who manage the business who use methods that produce lower quality for their price point, and the workers simply do what they are told to do, even if it means producing an inferior product?

I tend to think that smaller companies are more likely to use their workers' ingenuity in improving product quality or features. Large companies seem to have many layers between the worker and where the management decisions are made, and they lose the ability to tap into the workers' experience with the systems and materials. Can large unions similarly lose touch with their worker members?

Locally, we have an Amazon distribution center. It made headlines in the local papers when workers were suffering through the summer in an incredibly hot building. There was public pressure for Amazon to improve its working conditions.

I'd be interested in hearing the varied opinions on this.
If the workers decide they no longer want the union to represent them, they can move to de-certify the union. that is a secret ballot vote. If the majority says out, the union is gone, or if the majority says in, they stay.

helencalif
12-12-2012, 02:38 AM
Franco,

I just noticed your avatar... the famous photo of Y.A. Tittle.
Helen

Franco
12-12-2012, 07:02 AM
Franco,

I just noticed your avatar... the famous photo of Y.A. Tittle.
Helen

Yes it is.

"A photo of a dazed Tittle in the endzone taken by Morris Berman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Pittsburgh_Post-Gazette) on September 20, 1964, is regarded among the most iconic images in the history of sports. Tittle, who was in the final season of his career, was photographed helmet-less, bloodied and kneeling immediately after having been knocked to the ground by John Baker of the Pittsburgh Steelers (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Pittsburgh_Steelers) and throwing an interception that was returned for a touchdown at the old Pitt Stadium (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Pitt_Stadium). The quarterback suffered both a concussion and cracked sternum on the play.+

His record of 7 TD passes in a single game is still a record today and he held the record for most TD passes in a season for over 20 years until broken by Dan Marino. Probably the greatest QB to ever come out of LSU.

coachmo
12-12-2012, 08:12 AM
Murral, there you go again making assumptions. I never once said how I was paid prior to my last post and salaried employees can join a union (in specific fields) if they are inclined too.

road kill
12-12-2012, 08:22 AM
This issue of RTW is a self inflicted wound by ORGANIZED LABOR.

They were warned against putting a referendum on the MI ballot to make collective bargaining a constitutional right.
It lost soundly by a 60% to 40% margin.
Had they listened for a change, they would not be out of business now.

The "CASH COW" for the secular progressive party has been slain!!

Perhaps Finlander can speak directly to this.

Congrats to the people of MI, you have won.
Perhaps now you can get some businesses to flourish in your state.

Good luck!

Buzz
12-12-2012, 10:46 AM
This issue of RTW is a self inflicted wound by ORGANIZED LABOR.

They were warned against putting a referendum on the MI ballot to make collective bargaining a constitutional right.
It lost soundly by a 60% to 40% margin.
Had they listened for a change, they would not be out of business now.

The "CASH COW" for the secular progressive party has been slain!!

Perhaps Finlander can speak directly to this.

Congrats to the people of MI, you have won.
Perhaps now you can get some businesses to flourish in your state.

Good luck!

Well see. I know several who I grew up with in Michigan who are UAW and always supported the GOP, they were very vocal against the union's support for Democrats. Today, they are hopping mad at the legislature and the gov. Same with several of the firefighters my dad worked with. They know that they are next.

caryalsobrook
12-12-2012, 10:50 AM
This issue of RTW is a self inflicted wound by ORGANIZED LABOR.

They were warned against putting a referendum on the MI ballot to make collective bargaining a constitutional right.
It lost soundly by a 60% to 40% margin.
Had they listened for a change, they would not be out of business now.

The "CASH COW" for the secular progressive party has been slain!!

Perhaps Finlander can speak directly to this.

Congrats to the people of MI, you have won.
Perhaps now you can get some businesses to flourish in your state.

Good luck!

Damn RK Tn. may now have to compete with not only your WI but Mich. too. Oh woh is us Tennesseans. ;-);-)

road kill
12-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Well see. I know several who I grew up with in Michigan who are UAW and always supported the GOP, they were very vocal against the union's support for Democrats. Today, they are hopping mad at the legislature and the gov. Same with several of the firefighters my dad worked with. They know that they are next.
Just a quick reminder, this ain't when you grew up!!!!:(

Marvin S
12-12-2012, 12:25 PM
Well see. I know several who I grew up with in Michigan who are UAW and always supported the GOP, they were very vocal against the union's support for Democrats. Today, they are hopping mad at the legislature and the gov. Same with several of the firefighters my dad worked with. They know that they are next.

But it's OK if there is a new different tax rate, for the RICH :confused:. Please explain your reasoning behind this thought process :).

Dan Storts
12-12-2012, 01:04 PM
The police and firefighters should have unions. This is so the union can protect them from our politicians and the public which file lawsuits against them for doing their jobs. (Example: For police. Used a billy club instead of pepper spray, Used stun gun instead of billy club, Used a gun instead of a stun gun.) Even the POTUS when after the police. Then patched things by sitting down with him and the professor for a beer.

Susie Royer
12-12-2012, 01:43 PM
Just a quick remender, this ain't when you grew up!!!!:(

What year did you grow up in MI Buzz?

JS
12-12-2012, 02:43 PM
I really don't have any experience with unions, but trying to look at this objectively.

It appears that once a company has a union, it always stays there. Does the union ever have to be subjected to a "confidence" vote? Like, every so many years, do the workers get to re-affirm that they want this union to represent them? For example, if a group of workers felt that the union was doing a poor job of representation; or if there was abuse of funds, etc., the workers might want a change ... either to another union or to no union.

.........



Gerry, you ask a lot of questions and brief answers are sometimes dangerous because they can leave misunderstandings. But I will answer and give my opinions as best I can.

There is no “sunset law” for union representation. The process to decertify an existing union ... just like the process to organize one in the first place ... is a somewhat lengthy, legal one and, in both cases, is initiated by the members. It’s good that it is a somewhat lengthy process, in that it prevents a group of unorganized workers from hastily rushing out and organizing into a union and striking the company just because they are pizzed over some recent action. Likewise, it makes it difficult for union members to rush out and hastily decertify their union just because they are dissatisfied over some single recent, unpopular decision.

(incidentally, members’ dissatisfaction with their union leadership almost always results from some lack of ability to resolve an issue or dispute with management that is dear to some of the members, i.e., dropping a grievance that, in the bigger picture, is without merit, etc.)

Decertification is rare and in most cases is a company-inspired tactic to rid themselves of the union. For example, a company wants the union out; they provoke a strike by making unreasonable demands in negotiations and then immediately hire replacement workers from the street to cross the picket lines and work without a contract. (I have seen this happen where “scab” workers were imported from several states away ... people on parole who would not otherwise get hired, etc.) After these replacement workers have been on the job for one year without a contract, they are then recognized by the NLRB as the “permanent employees”. They petition for a decertification vote ... in which the striking workers on the street are now not allowed to vote ... and presto! No more union problems.

Sound familiar? Air Traffic Controllers? Ronald Reagan made the statement publicly to the American Manufacturers Association, “watch me and I’ll show you how to bust a union”.

Of course, we know that solved all the airlines’ problems.:-P

JS

JS
12-12-2012, 02:47 PM
.......

For a long time (I don't know if it is still so), there were no unions in Japan, but workers were treated well. There were rarely layoffs or job-changing. We now have companies like Toyota here in the US who do not have a union for workers.

.......




Unions in Japan:

I believe there are now unions in Japan, not sure how they operate, but the difference you are talking about is more one of management style. As you say, workers were treated well. And as I have said here before, if the workers are satisfied with their lot and are treated fair and equitably, there is no reason to form a union. Unions, just like most of our laws, originated from some sort of need.

“Japanese Management Style” was the buzz word of the 80s when the “cooperative/participative management” movement was the rage. It is a bit of a misnomer ... there were a lot of Japanese management practices that were not necessarily “better” but they did focus on things like team-building, using the workers’ ingenuity, knowledge, and brains as well as his back, sharing information with the employees that was previously considered “sensitive”, listening and including shop floor folks in problem-solving processes, etc, etc.

For 10 years, my job was as a “man in the middle”, in a joint labor/management effort at a fairly large company (Deere) helping implement that type of system. Resistance came from both directions, but believe me, it was much more difficult to break down the barriers from the management side. The workers were skeptical and didn’t trust the company but managers (who own the bat and the ball ;-)) felt threatened that they would lose their, previously unchallenged power.

This topic is a long, fascinating story but in brief, it has vastly improved labor relations in those companies that have gone in that direction.

JS

JS
12-12-2012, 02:56 PM
.......


What I haven't seen in these discussions is any admission that unions can have flaws in the way they are managed ... just like companies can have flawed management.

Well, if I haven't said it before let me say it now: To suggest that all unions are flawless is ridiculous! I know that is not true, any more so than all managers and companies are evil.

I guess I just took for granted we could all understand that. But rather than just swap personal anecdotes alone (which we can all dig up), I would rather discuss the general philosophy of workers organizing and use examples to support our beliefs.


When talking of the fact that union wages are higher than non-union wages, that can also mean the products those companies produce will cost more than products made by non-union companies. Isn't that part of he problem with why jobs then go overseas ... because even though Americans might prefer to buy American-made products, they opt for foreign-made products due to price combined with quality. If the US-made product is superior, and the price is within reason v. the foreign-made product, it will still be competitive in the market.

There is a market for higher quality goods. Toyota cars are competitive, even though often more expensive, due to their perceived durability. US-made cars lost their perceived quality over time. That's one example, and certainly not perfect, as more recently even Toyota has had quality-control issues it would appear.

It is often cited that American workers are among the most productive workers in the world. I wouldn't dispute this. If we start there, then we might also assume they work hard to do a good job at what they do. Would it not follow that US products would then have a high quality? Is it the companies who manage the business who use methods that produce lower quality for their price point, and the workers simply do what they are told to do, even if it means producing an inferior product?

I tend to think that smaller companies are more likely to use their workers' ingenuity in improving product quality or features. Large companies seem to have many layers between the worker and where the management decisions are made, and they lose the ability to tap into the workers' experience with the systems and materials. Can large unions similarly lose touch with their worker members?

Locally, we have an Amazon distribution center. It made headlines in the local papers when workers were suffering through the summer in an incredibly hot building. There was public pressure for Amazon to improve its working conditions.

I'd be interested in hearing the varied opinions on this.

Union wages cause work to be moved overseas:

Certainly, wages are going to be reflected in the price of a product we buy. But a couple things jump out;

It does not follow that companies will lower their prices in conjunction with lower labor costs. As you mention, Toyotas are priced comparably to union-produced cars even though their wage scale is much lower.

Long ago, when everyone smoked cigarettes, Malboro was the only popular brand not unionized. They always cost the same as the rest. What you did see was a tremendous amount of advertising ... with the money they saved in wages they tried to buy the market.

When the production of shoes, once a major industry in the northeast, moved overseas, did the prices come down?

Many examples, but even if it could be said that cheaper labor costs will always mean lower prices, do we really want to see how cheaply we can work??? Do we really want to participate in the “race to the bottom”??? Insisting to buy the cheapest we can find, regardless of other considerations, is just another form of greed, IMO. And to then accuse workers of greed for wanting a decent living wage, is simple hypocrisy.

When I go south for the winter, I notice prices in grocery stores are definitely not lower than here at home even though the prevailing earnings in those states is significantly less.

Regarding quality, I believe there are an awful lot of myths perpetuated about perceived better quality of products made overseas. Not sure how that can be proven and I do not trust some of the more popular “car-of-the-year” sources. I think there is a lot of marketing hype that conflicts with my personal experiences, but people general believe what they believe. All I can say is John Deere is the best! :cool:

JS

road kill
12-12-2012, 03:09 PM
Unions in Japan:

I believe there are now unions in Japan, not sure how they operate, but the difference you are talking about is more one of management style. As you say, workers were treated well. And as I have said here before, if the workers are satisfied with their lot and are treated fair and equitably, there is no reason to form a union. Unions, just like most of our laws, originated from some sort of need.

“Japanese Management Style” was the buzz word of the 80s when the “cooperative/participative management” movement was the rage. It is a bit of a misnomer ... there were a lot of Japanese management practices that were not necessarily “better” but they did focus on things like team-building, using the workers’ ingenuity, knowledge, and brains as well as his back, sharing information with the employees that was previously considered “sensitive”, listening and including shop floor folks in problem-solving processes, etc, etc.

For 10 years, my job was as a “man in the middle”, in a joint labor/management effort at a fairly large company (Deere) helping implement that type of system. Resistance came from both directions, but believe me, it was much more difficult to break down the barriers from the management side. The workers were skeptical and didn’t trust the company but managers (who own the bat and the ball ;-)) felt threatened that they would lose their, previously unchallenged power.

This topic is a long, fascinating story but in brief, it has vastly improved labor relations in those companies that have gone in that direction.

JS
So, in your honest opinion, does the modern day union care about its members?
Or is it more concerned with large membership and cash flow??

For the record....I have no issue really with trade unions.
My issue was with public employee unions here in WI.
When it was MANDATORY one belong.
And mandatory you bought your insurance from 1 company (at twice the going rate).....owned by....wait for it.....wait for it






DA UNION!!!!!


Seems pretty legit!!

I do not hate any union members and respect their right to waste their cash however they want.
I am guessing not all union members want their money given to the secular progressive party, but too bad for them.


Just sayin'........

JS
12-12-2012, 03:25 PM
This issue of RTW is a self inflicted wound by ORGANIZED LABOR.

They were warned against putting a referendum on the MI ballot to make collective bargaining a constitutional right.
It lost soundly by a 60% to 40% margin.
Had they listened for a change, they would not be out of business now.



WOW! The union is out of business?? :shock:

You duped me once, rk, so I hesitate. I wish you had a "chain-jerking" smiley.

I actually enjoy people with differing opinions but it drives me nuts when they have a misunderstanding. Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", perpetuating the same misunderstanding about RTW that is often voiced here. In his next sentence, he posted a graphic showing 17% of the state's workers were union members.

So what are you saying, Brian? That those other 83% of the workers in Michigan are breaking some sort of law?? Make yourself clear. Were the workers in Michigan required to belong to the union in order to work? Or only 17% of them?



The "CASH COW" for the secular progressive party has been slain!!

Perhaps Finlander can speak directly to this.

Congrats to the people of MI, you have won.
Perhaps now you can get some businesses to flourish in your state.

Good luck!

So what's really changed in Michigan? How many of those 83% do you think would have organized a union if I had come to Michigan to open a business????? Should I have had to worry about that???

And how many of those 17% do you think will quit paying dues and drop out of the union now??? A few I suppose ... I'll stay tuned to Fox News. I'm sure they will be watching it closely. ;-)

Businesses locate in the south, not because they have RTW laws but because the business sentiment there is generally anti-union and the people are used to working for less. Granted the RTW status is an indicator, but the law itself has no real impact on whether the union will attempt to organize or not.

JS

JS
12-12-2012, 03:35 PM
So, in your honest opinion, does the modern day union care about its members?

YES, ABSOLUTELY!! The union IS the members. In the UAW ALL of our leadership ... 100% ... have come from the shop floor.

Or is it more concerned with large membership and cash flow??

No.

For the record....I have no issue really with trade unions.
My issue was with public employee unions here in WI.
When it was MANDATORY one belong.
And mandatory you bought your insurance from 1 company (at twice the going rate).....owned by....wait for it.....wait for it

Are yu an insurance salesman?? :p




DA UNION!!!!!


Seems pretty legit!!

I do not hate any union members and respect their right to waste their cash however they want.
I am guessing not all union members want their money given to the secular progressive party, but too bad for them.


Just sayin'........

See, I can write with colors, too!

JS

road kill
12-12-2012, 03:36 PM
WOW! The union is out of business?? :shock:

You duped me once, rk, so I hesitate. I wish you had a "chain-jerking" smiley.

I actually enjoy people with differing opinions but it drives me nuts when they have a misunderstanding. Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", perpetuating the same misunderstanding about RTW that is often voiced here. In his next sentence, he posted a graphic showing 17% of the state's workers were union members.

So what are you saying, Brian? That those other 83% of the workers in Michigan are breaking some sort of law?? Make yourself clear. Were the workers in Michigan required to belong to the union in order to work? Or only 17% of them?



So what's really changed in Michigan? How many of those 83% do you think would have organized a union if I had come to Michigan to open a business????? Should I have had to worry about that???

And how many of those 17% do you think will quit paying dues and drop out of the union now??? A few I suppose ... I'll stay tuned to Fox News. I'm sure they will be watching it closely. ;-)

Businesses locate in the south, not because they have RTW laws but because the business sentiment there is generally anti-union and the people are used to working for less. Granted the RTW status is an indicator, but the law itself has no real impact on whether the union will attempt to organize or not.

JS
By your account, it's all "much ado about nothing??"

RetrieverNation
12-12-2012, 03:38 PM
Union wages cause work to be moved overseas:

Certainly, wages are going to be reflected in the price of a product we buy. But a couple things jump out;

It does not follow that companies will lower their prices in conjunction with lower labor costs. As you mention, Toyotas are priced comparably to union-produced cars even though their wage scale is much lower.

Long ago, when everyone smoked cigarettes, Malboro was the only popular brand not unionized. They always cost the same as the rest. What you did see was a tremendous amount of advertising ... with the money they saved in wages they tried to buy the market.

When the production of shoes, once a major industry in the northeast, moved overseas, did the prices come down?

Many examples, but even if it could be said that cheaper labor costs will always mean lower prices, do we really want to see how cheaply we can work??? Do we really want to participate in the “race to the bottom”??? Insisting to buy the cheapest we can find, regardless of other considerations, is just another form of greed, IMO. And to then accuse workers of greed for wanting a decent living wage, is simple hypocrisy.

When I go south for the winter, I notice prices in grocery stores are definitely not lower than here at home even though the prevailing earnings in those states is significantly less.

Regarding quality, I believe there are an awful lot of myths perpetuated about perceived better quality of products made overseas. Not sure how that can be proven and I do not trust some of the more popular “car-of-the-year” sources. I think there is a lot of marketing hype that conflicts with my personal experiences, but people general believe what they believe. All I can say is John Deere is the best! :cool:

JS
Simple economics and the laws of supply and demand are whats at play here. We live in a free market where capitalism prevails and we should all be thankful for that. Its the union's problem for not recognizing they have a demand problem. Lobbying and politics are short term fixes to this problem and seem to be the unions only recourse. The unions have been selling the same old glass of koolaid for almost a century and all it takes is one quick look at the numbers to see it is time to either engage the free market or cash out. The unions will never get the respect they want until they can design a product that makes sense for today's market, which inlcudes recognizing the laws of supply and demand. The quicker they realize that marketing annual benefit and pay increases to their customers regardless of market conditions is bad business, the sooner they will start to heal the deep wounds and gain the respect they so desire.

I also see you spoke of Japan in the 80's in a previous reply. W. Edwards Deming revolutionized the Japanese auto industry with his management training that America was unwilling to accept. Maybe the union boys should pick up some of his material and figure out how to revolutionize?

menmon
12-12-2012, 03:43 PM
Simple economics and the laws of supply and demand are whats at play here. We live in a free market where capitalism prevails and we should all be thankful for that. Its the union's problem for not recognizing they have a demand problem. Lobbying and politics are short term fixes to this problem and seem to be the unions only recourse. The unions have been selling the same old glass of koolaid for almost a century and all it takes is one quick look at the numbers to see it is time to either engage the free market or cash out. The unions will never get the respect they want until they can design a product that makes sense for today's market, which inlcudes recognizing the laws of supply and demand. The quicker they realize that marketing annual benefit and pay increases to their customers regardless of market conditions is bad business, the sooner they will start to heal the deep wounds and gain the respect they so desire.

I also see you spoke of Japan in the 80's in a previous reply. W. Edwards Deming revolutionized the Japanese auto industry with his management training that America was unwilling to accept. Maybe the union boys should pick up some of his material and figure out how to revolutionize?

Dude they having been doing that for 100 years as you say. When business is good the party they are negotiating with is more apt to agree to their request as opposed to when it is doiong poorly not be as giving. Bargining...no more

JS
12-12-2012, 03:43 PM
By your account, it's all "much ado about nothing??"

Well, I wouldn't exactly say "nothing". But it's more of an insult than it is anything else. Pride and image.

Nobody learned anything new yesterday about the sentiment toward unions. If a new business decides to locate in Michigan, they will face the same conditions they did last week as far as the threat of having to deal with DA UNION. If the majority of their employees don't want to pay union dues, they will vote no and there won't be a union. Just like last week.

JS

JS

JS
12-12-2012, 03:51 PM
.....

I also see you spoke of Japan in the 80's in a previous reply. W. Edwards Deming revolutionized the Japanese auto industry with his management training that America was unwilling to accept. Maybe the union boys should pick up some of his material and figure out how to revolutionize?

It was American BUSINESS/MANAGEMENT that would not accept Deming's ideas, NOT the union!!

Contrary to the opinion of many, the unions do not make management decisions and have very little ability, OR DESIRE to stand in the way of progress.

JS

RetrieverNation
12-12-2012, 03:51 PM
Dude they having been doing that for 100 years as you say. When business is good the party they are negotiating with is more apt to agree to their request as opposed to when it is doiong poorly not be as giving. Bargining...no more

I think you nailed it. Who says the party they are negotiating with has to give anything? Thanks for helping me prove my point.

menmon
12-12-2012, 03:56 PM
I think you nailed it. Who says the party they are negotiating with has to give anything? Thanks for helping me prove my point.

They do if they want to keep their workers....that is my point. Obviously they need employees but employees need a fair wage. Left up to the companies that have unions they would not pay a fair wage. If they did with out the nudge of the union there would be no need for a union

RetrieverNation
12-12-2012, 04:05 PM
They do if they want to keep their workers....that is my point. Obviously they need employees but employees need a fair wage. Left up to the companies that have unions they would not pay a fair wage. If they did with out the nudge of the union there would be no need for a union

Does a fair wage ever go down?

Dan Storts
12-12-2012, 04:34 PM
No, the fair wage always increases. However, it is said fair because it really is unfair. Give me a dollar amount which is fair because it has to be to everyone. (UAW Union Rule 402) Do you really think the same 70k salary/income is going to be the same to a family of 4 living in North Dakota as to one living in New York City. Now, which family is better off financially?

caryalsobrook
12-12-2012, 05:03 PM
WOW! The union is out of business?? :shock:

You duped me once, rk, so I hesitate. I wish you had a "chain-jerking" smiley.

I actually enjoy people with differing opinions but it drives me nuts when they have a misunderstanding. Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", perpetuating the same misunderstanding about RTW that is often voiced here. In his next sentence, he posted a graphic showing 17% of the state's workers were union members.

So what are you saying, Brian? That those other 83% of the workers in Michigan are breaking some sort of law?? Make yourself clear. Were the workers in Michigan required to belong to the union in order to work? Or only 17% of them?



So what's really changed in Michigan? How many of those 83% do you think would have organized a union if I had come to Michigan to open a business????? Should I have had to worry about that???

And how many of those 17% do you think will quit paying dues and drop out of the union now??? A few I suppose ... I'll stay tuned to Fox News. I'm sure they will be watching it closely. ;-)

Businesses locate in the south, not because they have RTW laws but because the business sentiment there is generally anti-union and the people are used to working for less. Granted the RTW status is an indicator, but the law itself has no real impact on whether the union will attempt to organize or not.

JS
You are more adept in quoting posts nd this is all that I could copy. I will probably surprise you in agreeing with most of what you say. There are some differences though in your conclusions.
Let me express my thoughts this way. Consumers want choice when buying goods and services. They want to those goods and services that give them the most value for their buck. Sellers want to restrice choice. They want to limit choice therefore reducing the level of competition. businesses are no different. Labor, capital goods, inventory, realestate, ect. are all costs of production and as such want the choice of purchasing these resources, getting the most for their buck. Why would you expect a union to buy a plaque from China? Answer is as a consumer, they wanted what they perceived as the most bang for their buck. Business would also like to create a manopoly of what they sell in order to limit choice. We as a gov. try to prevent this with laws. Unions do exactly the same thing. As a seller of labor they try to limit choice as to the supply of labor via manopolistic practices. Businesses try to hide their manopolistic position by broadening the definition of their product in order to avoid antitrust. Unions try to hide their manopolistic efforts by claiming higher wages, better work conditions, job security, ect. What you call the race to the bottom is really a race to the top. You talk about the lower wages in the south as the reason that businesses and ou are correct. What you fail to mention, is that the effects of reconstruction after the Civil War lasted more that 100 years. I will again cite the fantom freight cost of steel which hurt steel production in Ala. and protected steel production in Penn. Capitalists believe that free movement of those resources of production from one sector to another of an economy produces the biggest bang for the buck for the consumer. Union supporters tend to forget that labor is nothing more than one of the costs of prodduction and tend to restrict it's free movement from one sector to another. As you said geneally, if a business finds moe bang for their buck in another country and can move capital there then they will do so. To do otherwise would raise the cost of their product. I actually think that in the long run, Mich., Oh. and Wis as examples will be ok. All they have to do is recognize that they have to compete not only in the world market but here at home. When they do then, wages and jobs will stabilize in this contry. The only question is how nearsited they are.

By the way Ford is Best(I own a 150 and a 350) I also own a case tractor and I could care less where they were made of if the company was union or not. I just want the most bang for my buck.;-)

murral stark
12-12-2012, 06:10 PM
Murral, there you go again making assumptions. I never once said how I was paid prior to my last post and salaried employees can join a union (in specific fields) if they are inclined too.

Well if you are working in a bargaining unit represented by a union contract, and you can join the union and don't, you are a leech. that is if you are receiving the same wages and benefits as the union members. You need to put all the information out there that is relevant so I don't make assumptions. I interpret the information I am given. If you are hiding details how can I know for sure what to think. You are not really lying, just not revealing all of the details.

Marvin S
12-12-2012, 06:20 PM
It does not follow that companies will lower their prices in conjunction with lower labor costs.

Businesses lower their prices to create or eliminate competition. If there is a monopoly, there is no reason to lower prices. Those with a superior product are the only ones with pricing power in a competitive field.


All I can say is John Deere is the best! :cool: JS

Of course you are joking :-P. Were it not for farm subsidies, JD would be just a run of the mill farm equipment builder, if they survived. But I do believe they have astute management that recognize the situation.


Last night Brian Williams, on the NBC News, referred to "the people of Michigan no longer having to belong to a union as a condition of employment", JS

If that was the only time the "talking head" provided misinformation the world would be a better place. Brian isn't even the best in his own group @ NBC ;-).

mngundog
12-12-2012, 06:36 PM
Of course you are joking :-P. Were it not for farm subsidies, JD would be just a run of the mill farm equipment builder, if they survived. But I do believe they have astute management that recognize the situation.

Come on Marvin your smarter than that.:D

JS
12-12-2012, 06:50 PM
I'm learning there is a lot of chain-jerking on POTUS.

JS

coachmo
12-12-2012, 09:49 PM
Murral, so now you're calling me a liar. Well somewhat of a liar. You are something else! What in the world do I need to lie about?

murral stark
12-12-2012, 10:05 PM
Murral, so now you're calling me a liar. Well somewhat of a liar. You are something else! What in the world do I need to lie about?

I'm not calling you a liar at all. You started out saying you worked in a union environment and asked if you were considered a leech by not joining the union? that led me to believe you were piggy backing off the union negotiations to get the same benefits as the union members, you just didn't want to pay for the service. Don't ask misleading questions to make people think your situation is different than what it actually is. If I were to call you a liar, I wouldn't hide it with hints, I'd come right out and call you a liar. I am not calling you a liar, but you are a deceptive rascal.

coachmo
12-12-2012, 10:25 PM
I work in an environment and in a field that has union and non-union workers. Not being deceptive about anything. Whatever you read into the situation is up to you. Remember you don't have to respond to my posts.

murral stark
12-13-2012, 12:23 AM
I work in an environment and in a field that has union and non-union workers. Not being deceptive about anything. Whatever you read into the situation is up to you. Remember you don't have to respond to my posts.

does everybody get the same wages as the union workers and receive representation in cases of disciplinary actions? You said you were the boss, but,you never answered whether you owned the company or just work for the man. If you just work for the man, would you ask the union to represent you if you got into trouble? Or, would you just take your medicine?

Cody Covey
12-13-2012, 03:30 PM
If I am a business owner and the employees attempt to unionize. Do I have any recourse? Can I just say no or fire them all and start anew? Always thought it was very weird that the employees could attempt to tell a business owner they have to let the union in.

HPL
12-13-2012, 03:44 PM
There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about the group for whom my wife works. It is said the some years ago (long before my wife started there) that there was an attempt to unionize and the owners basically said "go ahead we're behind you, but, we can live off our dividends and the oil royalties forever without ever producing another thing, thus not really needing employees at all. We can shut down tomorrow and never look back so you decide."
I should say that this group has been a pretty good group to work for with very good health insurance (for which we paid not a cent until just a few years ago) liberal paid vacation and health leave, a good pension plan, and several rather odd benefits that have been pretty nice. They built a school for the children of the employees and made sure that the teachers were top notch. There are a number of employees that are fourth or even fifth generation employees.
I am pretty sure that any privately owned business can absolutely just quit operations and move if they don't wish to go union. Publicly owned operations are, I'm sure, a different story. What I don't understand is whether, if I own rent property for instance, and if I live in a non RTW state, if I can be forced to use union labor to do repairs (plumbers, electricians, etc.) How about if I am a small business owner and need repairs on my facility?

Golddogs
12-13-2012, 07:14 PM
There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about the group for whom my wife works. It is said the some years ago (long before my wife started there) that there was an attempt to unionize and the owners basically said "go ahead we're behind you, but, we can live off our dividends and the oil royalties forever without ever producing another thing, thus not really needing employees at all. We can shut down tomorrow and never look back so you decide."
I should say that this group has been a pretty good group to work for with very good health insurance (for which we paid not a cent until just a few years ago) liberal paid vacation and health leave, a good pension plan, and several rather odd benefits that have been pretty nice. They built a school for the children of the employees and made sure that the teachers were top notch. There are a number of employees that are fourth or even fifth generation employees.
I am pretty sure that any privately owned business can absolutely just quit operations and move if they don't wish to go union. Publicly owned operations are, I'm sure, a different story. What I don't understand is whether, if I own rent property for instance, and if I live in a non RTW state, if I can be forced to use union labor to do repairs (plumbers, electricians, etc.) How about if I am a small business owner and need repairs on my facility?


In MN, it matters not if your plumber, electrician, carpenter is union or not. What does matter is they be licensed, bonded and insured. We have union shops and non-union shops. Most residential carpentry is nu.

What has bothered me alot about the union bashing posts is the lack of respect for those who fought to form unions and push for a fair and safe work place. I would venture that any person on this forum in an hourly job, trade, driver or manufacturing position would not be making the wage the are if not for unions. And stop and think a moment as to why they were needed at all. I had family members beaten by Mpls goon squads for having the gaul to ask for and strike for a fair living wage and safe work place. Had it not been for unions, who knows what could have happened. This was common place nation wide. Workers had no rights and were considered less than human for years. If not for unions, I know I would not be able to command the wage I currently get for my work nor would my wife for nursing. And the safety measures, I doubt the business's would have invoked them on there own. Do you think the coal mine owners gave a damn about miners getting hurt? How about the iron miners and workers. My father in law has asbestosis from working as plumber.. I can assure you the shop was not the one pushing for safety measures.

There is no question that many unions went too far in both wage demands and benefits, caused in large part to the history of labor getting the short end of everything,but most have come to realize that both sides have a stake in the game, and the business owners have come to realize they cannot afford to short the help because they are the ones who are doing the work to make the company profitable.

I am somewhat puzzled at how much hatred is foisted on the unions from so many blue collar workers on this forum and how little is directed at big business, bankers and wall street for all of the ruin they caused in the past. Our housing market still has not recovered, and it isn't because the unions are demanding too much to build a house. My stock holding are a joke still.

Idiots walk among us in every shape a form, and to me, it is a very small minded person who thinks a few idiots are a true representation of any group.

Look past your nose Regards

murral stark
12-13-2012, 07:25 PM
In MN, it matters not if your plumber, electrition, carpenter is union or not. What does matter is they be licensed, bonded and insured. We have union shops and non-union shops. Most residential carpentry is nu.

What has bothered me alot about the union bashing posts is the lack of respect for those who fought to form unions and push for a fair and safe work place. I would venture that any person on this forum in an hourly job, trade, driver or manufacturing position would not be making the wage the are if not for unions. And stop and think a moment as to why they were needed at all. I had family members beaten by Mpls goon squads for having the gaul to ask for and strike for a fair living wage and safe work place. Had it not been for unions, who knows what could have happened. This was common place nation wide. Workers had no rights and were considered less than human for years. If not for unions, I know I would not be able to command the wage I currently get for my work nor would my wife for nursing. And the safety measures, I doubt the business's would have invoked them on there own. Do you think the coal mine owners gave a damn about miners getting hurt? How about the iron miners and workers. My father in law has asbestosis from working as plumber.. I can assure you the shop was not the one pushing for safety measures.

There is no question that many unions went too far in both wage demands and benefits, caused in large part to the history of labor getting the short end of everything,but most have come to realize that both sides have a stake in the game, and the business owners have come to realize they cannot afford to short the help because they are the ones who are doing the work to make the company profitable.

I am somewhat puzzled at how much hatred is foisted on the unions from so many blue collar workers on this forum and how little is directed at big business, bankers and wall street for all of the ruin they caused in the past. Our housing market still has not recovered, and it isn't because the unions are demanding too much to build a house. My stock holding are a joke still.

Idiots walk among us in every shape a form, and to me, it is a very small minded person who thinks a few idiots are a true representation of any group.

Look past your nose Regards

Right on the money. Most people that hate the unions are probably business owners that don't want to pay the workers a good wage so they can stuff the money in their own pockets. they value the product being produced more than the people producing it.

coachmo
12-13-2012, 09:25 PM
Murral, that's one extremely asinine thing to say. You have very little credibility on most issues because of dumb statements like that.

JS
12-13-2012, 09:41 PM
In MN, it matters not if your plumber, electrician, carpenter is union or not. What does matter is they be licensed, bonded and insured. We have union shops and non-union shops. Most residential carpentry is nu.

What has bothered me alot about the union bashing posts is the lack of respect for those who fought to form unions and push for a fair and safe work place. I would venture that any person on this forum in an hourly job, trade, driver or manufacturing position would not be making the wage the are if not for unions. And stop and think a moment as to why they were needed at all. I had family members beaten by Mpls goon squads for having the gaul to ask for and strike for a fair living wage and safe work place. Had it not been for unions, who knows what could have happened. This was common place nation wide. Workers had no rights and were considered less than human for years. If not for unions, I know I would not be able to command the wage I currently get for my work nor would my wife for nursing. And the safety measures, I doubt the business's would have invoked them on there own. Do you think the coal mine owners gave a damn about miners getting hurt? How about the iron miners and workers. My father in law has asbestosis from working as plumber.. I can assure you the shop was not the one pushing for safety measures.

There is no question that many unions went too far in both wage demands and benefits, caused in large part to the history of labor getting the short end of everything,but most have come to realize that both sides have a stake in the game, and the business owners have come to realize they cannot afford to short the help because they are the ones who are doing the work to make the company profitable.

I am somewhat puzzled at how much hatred is foisted on the unions from so many blue collar workers on this forum and how little is directed at big business, bankers and wall street for all of the ruin they caused in the past. Our housing market still has not recovered, and it isn't because the unions are demanding too much to build a house. My stock holding are a joke still.

Idiots walk among us in every shape a form, and to me, it is a very small minded person who thinks a few idiots are a true representation of any group.

Look past your nose Regards

Very astute post, Chuck. Thank you.

JS

murral stark
12-13-2012, 09:42 PM
Murral, that's one extremely asinine thing to say. You have very little credibility on most issues because of dumb statements like that.

You obviously work in a totally different industry than I do. I am only speaking about my industry, didn't mean to lump all industries in there. I have seen it time after time in my industry where the owner wants to cut wages and benefits to "stay competetive", yet claim record profits to their stock holders. How's this for caring for the people working for you? A person gets injured doing the work you pay them to do and they are restricted from their normal job duties. The empoyer claims that they have no jobs in the plant that falls under their restrictions. So they send them home. the workers compensation law states that you must be off for 7 consecutive calendar days to receive workers compensation. so now the employer doesn't have anything that falls under the injured worker's restrictions for 6 days. Miraculously on the 7th calendar day, they find something for the injured worker to do that fits their restrictions. They bring them in to work for 4 hours, because the work rules state that the employee gets 4 hours guaranteed pay if they come in. they bring them in and have them sit at the front gate counting vehicles in and out of the parking lot for 4 hours. They worked 4 hours during the 7 consecutive days off, so now they only get paid the 4 hours they actually worked. 7 days starts over again. Tell me why unions are not needed to protect people and how the employers care about the people.
BRAVO SIERRA!!!

murral stark
12-13-2012, 10:42 PM
Counter-point: the guy who claims injury, gets worker's comp, drags it out, and then gets caught golfing when he had a "debilitating injury". Employer tries to fire him and the union steps in to keep his job.

It can go both ways.... There are jerks in every field, on both sides of the line.

No union with any real leadership would even try to fight that termination. that is fraud and is a prosecuteable offense under the law. I have seen people go to jail for what you described.

luvmylabs23139
12-13-2012, 10:49 PM
No union with any real leadership would even try to fight that termination. that is fraud and is a prosecuteable offense under the law. I have seen people go to jail for what you described.

Evey unionj wants that slimeball to get his job back, F all unions!

luvmylabs23139
12-13-2012, 10:54 PM
If I am a business owner and the employees attempt to unionize. Do I have any recourse? Can I just say no or fire them all and start anew? Always thought it was very weird that the employees could attempt to tell a business owner they have to let the union in.

very simple close the company on monday and open on Tues with a new name.

Golddogs
12-13-2012, 11:10 PM
Evey unionj wants that slimeball to get his job back, F all unions!

And lets bring back the overseer and the indentured servants. What a totally classless comment.

murral stark
12-13-2012, 11:37 PM
Evey unionj wants that slimeball to get his job back, F all unions!

You don't know what you are saying. You appear to be a person that came from humble beginnings and aquired wealth and it changed you dramatically. that's what bothers me about "Mr. Moneyfeller" as Bill Tarrant called them in his book, "Hey Pup, Fetch it Up"

jacduck
12-14-2012, 07:39 AM
Believe me, I know what's criminal, and what fraud is. I've witnessed what I described take place. The sad truth is that it can, and does, happen.
From MI and yes that is soooo true. Been on both sides of the fence and came to the conclusion that unions were good, then crooked and now too powerful.

murral stark
12-14-2012, 05:53 PM
Believe me, I know what's criminal, and what fraud is. I've witnessed what I described take place. The sad truth is that it can, and does, happen.

It does happen and is unfortunate.

Cody Covey
12-14-2012, 06:30 PM
It does happen and is unfortunate.

You said it doesn't happen......

murral stark
12-14-2012, 06:38 PM
You said it doesn't happen......

No, I said that any union with good leadership would not contest the firing of someone claiming workers compenstaion and gets caught playing golf. I also said it is fraud and is prosecuteable, and that I have seen people go to jail for committing workers compensation fraud. Refer to post 181