Go Down
-
#15 by tomgallagher on 27 Jun, 2010 11:23
-
In my estimation in order for a union to be as effective as they used to be in the past, when they strike a company they must shut down the business that they are striking against. Something that modern day unions don't seem to be able to do, which renders them toothless, I mean useless.
-
#16 by D.A.L.U.I. on 27 Jun, 2010 11:55
-
The Union wanted that same painter to be able to sit around and get paid until more painting was required. The only logical reason that I can think of for this is so that the Union can have more people working in that plant,
Very good points, Mike. Also, each Union member pays dues, in many cases hefty dues. And those dues not only go to a fund in the event of strikes and legitimate uses that directly benefit union members, but also to pay union leaders wages that as entirely out of line w/ the reality of the industry as many of the so called "white-collar" management types and even more objectionable to fuel a political fund that provides the union leadership--as opposed to the membership--an undue voice in politics through political contributions, every bit as objectionable as other political action organizations whether you're for or against their general goals. The membership never gets a say in the distribution of these funds and the leadership never owes an accounting of how their distributions benefit the membership's interests in and out of work. IMO, it always comes down to the money, follow the money, find the problem. -
#17 by aarrggh on 27 Jun, 2010 12:49
-
Are`nt the unions in bed with the Government ?
-
#18 by Nonick on 27 Jun, 2010 22:41
-
I guess you'll have to "follow the money" to find out!
Now if H-D got on the bandwagon with those companies that want to legalize illegals (is that an oxymoron?) then they would save the moving costs to go south of the border, broker a deal with the unions, and hire the then formerly illegal legals!
-
#19 by buddha on 28 Jun, 2010 09:06
-
The problem that I see, as a former Union organizer in the early 80s, is that we have been fed only the negative info about unions that our elected reps and their bosses in industry want us to have.
We've all heard the abhorrent stories about how shoddily WalMart treats their employees. Does anybody out there really believe that Sam Walton's heirs would get away with half the $h!t the do if WalMart employees were allowed to organize and have things like collective bargaining.
We can blame the United Auto Workers for the decline of some American car companies, however, they statistically spend more money on advertising than they do on R&D. Or on health care. Is there anybody on this planet that doesn't know what a Ford is? Does GM EVER bring forth any new technology that will make the cars/trucks in this country comply with mileage standards in other countries? And if they carmakers don't want to pay benefits to their employees then they should stop offering them. That's fine. But don't cut off the people who labored for 30 years with the promise that they would have a retirement that was somewhat pleasant and then jerk the rug out from under them. Kinda like the "G" forcing people to pay into social security and Medicare and then announcing major cuts. That sounds a lot like stealin' to me. The employees/citizens are not the bad guys here. It's these CEOs that run a company into the literal ground and then collect a $50 million severance package just for totally screwing the pooch.
In short, if it were not for unions and their members being willing to sacrifice (in some cases their very lives, look up the Haymarket Riots on Google sometime if you ever want to know what this country is gonna look like without unions) we could all be relegated to a life of involuntarily servitude to some big entity or other. My point is that if you ever worked someplace that didn't have a union or the protections it affords and were constantly mistreated by an administration then you kinda have an idea as to why unions are necessary.
If you never worked in a place where management was allowed to run roughshod over labor every day until the union stepped in then you really better start reading some history and stop listening to Glenn Beck ranting about "unions and Marxists trying to destroy America". Unless, of course, you don't mind slavery.
P. S.: I deleted my emotionally based description of Glenn Beck voluntarily. Apparently he has lost some weight recently and he does dress well. -
#20 by tomgallagher on 28 Jun, 2010 09:48
-
'The Union wanted that same painter to be able to sit around and get paid until more painting was required.'
It fell under the heading of "It's not my job."....LOL. -
#21 by buddha on 28 Jun, 2010 10:41
-
There are plenty of labor laws on the books, as Koz said earlier. That is certainly true. But what if a situation exists in a certain company that compromises the safety of workers on one end or consumers on the other that runs afoul of some law or other? If there is no labor union present how does a single worker bring this situation to light without fear of reprisal? What if the situation is simply a violation of basic workers' rights, like being able to have a lunch break at some point during their shift but the company does not allow for that? I could go on and on with concerns for what the landscape is going to look like in the absence of organized labor. I have experienced a lot of bad behavior from management in my time. What protections does the average guy have from a rampaging management other than quitting his job and becomming one of the unemployed?
When I fell into the role of organizer 30 years ago it came about because we (the eventual membership) were pushed to the point where we felt as though we had no other option. While it is true that the presence of a union allows for the occasional "do-nothing" to keep his job it also protects the majority of the workforce that believes in giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay and would otherwise get steamrolled. So are we to gut the union effort and allow for the good employees to be abused along with the not so good?
As the situation exists where those CEOs get their big bucks termination packages and the financial interests of the shareholders come before any real research/development or product safety considerations I guess I'm just confused as to how unions got to be the bad guy in all this. -
#22 by D.A.L.U.I. on 28 Jun, 2010 14:33
-
I'm just confused as to how unions got to be the bad guy in all this.
The "unions" aren't the gremlins, it's union management who haven't gotten their hands dirty in years, except taking unreasonable amounts of the members' money without being required to account for it, who don't grant their members the right of a secret ballot, who are in short, "More royal than the [management] prince." They need to be taken down several pegs, and made responsible to their membership in real and substantial terms.