Speaking of Politics . . .

carguy123 wrote: Why did I title this Speaking of Politics . . .? cause that's where it will end up.

What?! It didn't turn political until post #2!

But he's right, we don't need to exploit cheap Chinese labor. We have plenty of 12 year olds we can exploit right here! I think that should be Rmoney's campaign slogan- "Bring worker exploitation home to America!"

People still get riled up over unions?

ThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: That can get done without a union too. A union isn't needed.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

pres589 wrote: I for one can't wait for work conditions to return to how wonderful they were before unions ever existed in this country.

I am assuming you are being sarcastic.. and will treat it as such.

I suggest anybody who is a rabid union hater to read Upton Sinclair's "the jungle"

And don't think it can't happen. Wallyworld is well known for making their employees work JUST under the full time cutoff that would make them pay benefits.. and they are known for making their employees work unpaid hours (on you way out, can you take care of.....)

Without unions.. it would not take long for the big businesses of the world to slowly erode the things we take for granted such as the 40 hour work week (anything above is OT) and other benefits.

If you really want to see how life can be like without those rules.. just become a salaried worker

What are you guys talking about? Private industry? That's silly. They only operate for the public good! They self regulate. Upton Sinclare was a left-wing journalist lying about an honorable industry. Damn liberal media. Why, next you'll be suggesting they put profit before safety. I guess you want big government keeping our food safe and keeping industry from polluting our environment. If a few 12 year olds die each year working in unsafe conditions, is that really the end of the word?

Industry is good and only wants the best for every American. It's our government, that consists only of people we elected who only return to their jobs if we elect them again, that is working against our interests. Just common sense!

Why do you hate freedom?

Josh wrote: A union is just a tool that enables a group of employees to act unilaterally in the way that employers already can by their nature. Sometimes the unilateral actions of unions negatively affect businesses or consumers. Sometimes the unilateral actions of employers negatively affect employees or consumers. If you get pissed off about one, but not the other, you're a hypocrite. Anyone calling for unions to be broken up should logically be calling for corporations to be broken up as well.

That is fairly disingenuous - and I think you understand that. While I agree with the principle of what you're saying, it's not the reality in large parts of the country.

I've never seen a corporation physically sabotage a rival corporation's construction project. I've never seen a corporation park a 20-foot-high inflatable rat and 20 irate guys in the street to block access to their rival corporation's site. I've never had to pay a corporation $75 an hour to watch me plug in extension cords, because that's a union electrician's job, and I'm not allowed to steal the bread out his hungry babies' mouths.

I have seen all these things personally, with my own eyes.

Yes, a corporation is a large collective and can be powerful. But I always have a choice about which firms I use for services and buy products from. If I don't like ConglomoCorp's terms, I can buy elsewhere, and there is nothing they can (or will) do about it.

But unions will force you to buy their product BY LAW, and if they can't manage that, they will do it by physical intimidation and violence. Last I heard of this happening from a corporation, the original JD Rockefeller was still alive.

Try building a construction project in Philadelphia using merit shop workers, and see how well that works. I've seen arson, vandalism, sabotage, and outright attacks on non-union projects.

So this is equivalent to a corporation HOW? I'm a hypocrite for being anti-union WHY?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: What are you guys talking about? Private industry? That's silly. They only operate for the public good! They self regulate. Upton Sinclare was a left-wing journalist lying about an honorable industry. Damn liberal media. Why, next you'll be suggesting they put profit before safety. I guess you want big government keeping our food safe and keeping industry from polluting our environment. If a few 12 year olds die each year working in unsafe conditions, is that really the end of the word? Industry is good and only wants the best for every American. It's our government, that consists only of people we elected who only return to their jobs if we elect them again, that is working against our interests. Just common sense! Why do you hate freedom?

I feel dirty for agreeing with you about something political.

This whole unions are the root of all evil coming from the right is just as tiring as corporations are the root of all evil coming from the left. I mean the simple truth is nothing is ever that black and white. Yes there are corporations that lie, cheat and steal and yes there are unions that do the same but that isn't all of them and I am willing to bet it is minority. Seeing corporations or unions doing that sells ads and papers so hey what do you think gets reported... It is never unions pushing for important safety laws or corporations donating millions to charities.

93EXCivic wrote: Yes there are corporations that lie, cheat and steal and yes there are unions that do the same but that isn't all of them and I am willing to bet it is minority.

I'm not so sure of that. Yes, Walmart throws its weight around and has a "like it or lump it" employee policy. But you don't have to work for Walmart if you can't tolerate their conditions, and if you quit, they'll happily let you go.

I've never seen Walmart management walk through the store with baseball bats threatening their employees. I've never see Walmart steal Target's forklift, use it to wreck Target's store, then pour sand in the crankcase.

I've seen union construction workers do that to merit shop construction projects.

93EXCivic wrote:

ThePhranc wrote: In reply to 93EXCivic: That can get done without a union too. A union isn't needed.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

The truth does make me happy.

me thinks too much of this goin' on...

ThePhranc wrote:

mad_machine wrote: can we not jump on the no union bandwagon... yes, there are some bad ones.. but most fly under the radar because they do not do anything that makes them look bad. IATSE, the one I belong to, is one of them

Its the cost of unions. They cost more, a lot more because of overinflated wages. More so when its "scale" wages for government work. And there is absolutely nothing that justifies those higher costs.

Cost more, sure. But you overstate how much more the cost really is. For the most part, I think a LOT of people over state the cost of labor when it comes to union vs. not and you include the final cost of the product to consumers.

It's hard to find GM data before bankruptcy, but if you analyize GM vs Toyota the year that they were virtually identical in sales, and know that Toyota employs about 140k vs. GM's 300k at the time (roughtly)- when you actually look at the cost to build a car, you will quicly see that it costs Toyota about $5000 MORE to build their cars that GM does. They manage to sell them for $9000 more, which is why Toyota makes money, and GM did not.

But if Toyota has half the employees of GM, and we do know that on a whole, the pay is slightly less at a Toyota plant, yet they somehow spend THAT much more money on a car??? Yea, Labor isn't THE issue. AN issue, sure- I'll grant you that. But it's not THE issure, therefor the whole Anti-Union stance tends to be way over stated.

does the UAW have problems, and do they defend poor workers? Sure- there's no denying that. But it's not the reason GM and Chrysler went into bankrupcy, and why Ford struggled. There were a lot of other reasons.

Union labor isn't killing the US. And if you kill union labor, I do hope that you don't expect them to buy whatever you are trying to sell.

fasted58 wrote: me thinks too much of this goin' on...

I can only speak from experience. I've also got bad experiences with the local Teacher's Union (protecting members who have no business teaching, blocking innovative and proven successful school operations) and UAW (there's a reason GM and Chrysler both closed their local plants).

I also watched every dollar of stimulus money go to paid fire company projects, and not a single penny to volunteer fire companies. Hmmm - I wonder how union firefighters vote.

Don't get me wrong, I hate corporate lobbying just as much. But unions have so badly outlived their constructive purpose (at least in the mid-atlantic region) that it is not even funny.

Duke wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Yes there are corporations that lie, cheat and steal and yes there are unions that do the same but that isn't all of them and I am willing to bet it is minority.

I'm not so sure of that. Yes, Walmart throws its weight around and has a "like it or lump it" employee policy. But you don't have to work for Walmart if you can't tolerate their conditions, and if you quit, they'll happily let you go. I've never seen Walmart management walk through the store with baseball bats threatening their employees. I've never see Walmart steal Target's forklift, use it to wreck Target's store, then pour sand in the crankcase. I've seen union construction workers do that to merit shop construction projects.

Like I said there are rotten ones but see my example earlier of one doing good to protect its workers.

alfadriver wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

mad_machine wrote: can we not jump on the no union bandwagon... yes, there are some bad ones.. but most fly under the radar because they do not do anything that makes them look bad. IATSE, the one I belong to, is one of them

Its the cost of unions. They cost more, a lot more because of overinflated wages. More so when its "scale" wages for government work. And there is absolutely nothing that justifies those higher costs.

Cost more, sure. But you overstate how much more the cost really is. For the most part, I think a LOT of people over state the cost of labor when it comes to union vs. not and you include the final cost of the product to consumers. It's hard to find GM data before bankruptcy, but if you analyize GM vs Toyota the year that they were virtually identical in sales, and know that Toyota employs about 140k vs. GM's 300k at the time (roughtly)- when you actually look at the cost to build a car, you will quicly see that it costs Toyota about $5000 MORE to build their cars that GM does. They manage to sell them for $9000 more, which is why Toyota makes money, and GM did not. But if Toyota has half the employees of GM, and we do know that on a whole, the pay is slightly less at a Toyota plant, yet they somehow spend THAT much more money on a car??? Yea, Labor isn't THE issue. AN issue, sure- I'll grant you that. But it's not THE issure, therefor the whole Anti-Union stance tends to be way over stated. does the UAW have problems, and do they defend poor workers? Sure- there's no denying that. But it's not the reason GM and Chrysler went into bankrupcy, and why Ford struggled. There were a lot of other reasons. Union labor isn't killing the US. And if you kill union labor, I do hope that you don't expect them to buy whatever you are trying to sell.

This isn't about UAW. And they were way overpaid.

This is about construction union costs and those are much much more than non-union costs. I know, I've been on both sides of the cost factor.

Duke wrote:

fasted58 wrote: me thinks too much of this goin' on...

I can only speak from experience. I've also got bad experiences with the local Teacher's Union (protecting members who have no business teaching, blocking innovative and proven successful school operations) and UAW (there's a reason GM and Chrysler both closed their local plants). I also watched every dollar of stimulus money go to paid fire company projects, and not a single penny to volunteer fire companies. Hmmm - I wonder how union firefighters vote. Don't get me wrong, I hate corporate lobbying just as much. But unions have so badly outlived their constructive purpose (at least in the mid-atlantic region) that it is not even funny.

I opened my shop an hour away from my house in VA because its a right to work state and I wouldn't have to deal with the unions like I did in MD.

alfadriver wrote: Cost more, sure. But you overstate how much more the cost really is. For the most part, I think a LOT of people over state the cost of labor when it comes to union vs. not and you include the final cost of the product to consumers. Union labor isn't killing the US. And if you kill union labor, I do hope that you don't expect them to buy whatever you are trying to sell.

I know the union-driven wage rates we are required to use on publicly-funded construction projects are purest bullE36 M3. They easily add 20% GROSS to the cost of building a building in this area.

Let's see - who doesn't think that a public school that's 20% larger, or 20% better, for the same tax dollars, is a good thing?

I would never vote to outlaw unions or unionization. But by the same token, I'll never ever support FORCING employers and buyers to use union labor or pay union scale. Unions are welcome to exist, but they need to thrive by their own merits and ability to ATTRACT enough workers to be effective in bargaining. The reality (around here anyway) is they force workers to join, then force employers to buy.

Not. Good.

Duke wrote: I would never vote to outlaw unions or unionization. But by the same token, I'll never ever support FORCING employers and buyers to use union labor or pay union scale. Unions are welcome to exist, but they need to thrive by their own merits and ability to ATTRACT enough workers to be effective in bargaining. The reality (around here anyway) is they force workers to join, then force employers to buy.

I agree with this. I don't think people should be forced to be in unions if they don't want to but I believe unions should still exist and if things get bad enough that a union needs to act I am willing to bet people will join in and act together.

The union I used to belong to just made sure the guys with 15 or more years in got big raises (60%) in a step plan. I had three years in, so I got just under 10%. So now, people who do the EXACT same job as me, make twice as much, even though I have more experience than they do.

They froze the step plan after two years. Didn't matter to the guys with 15 years in. They were already maxed out on the plan. The union even thought it would be a show of good faith to give 5% back when things got lean for the city. Some of the guys who had less years in than I did are now working for less than what they started at. The guys with 15 years? What does 5% matter, when you just got 60%... I was threatened with bodily harm when I started pointing this out to people. At least I'm in a right to work state. That extra money every paycheck that used to go to making sure the union bigwigs could go to Hawaii for their annual meeting, now goes to more important things.

You can take your unions and shove them where the sun don't shine.

alfadriver wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

mad_machine wrote: can we not jump on the no union bandwagon... yes, there are some bad ones.. but most fly under the radar because they do not do anything that makes them look bad. IATSE, the one I belong to, is one of them

Its the cost of unions. They cost more, a lot more because of overinflated wages. More so when its "scale" wages for government work. And there is absolutely nothing that justifies those higher costs.

Cost more, sure. But you overstate how much more the cost really is. For the most part, I think a LOT of people over state the cost of labor when it comes to union vs. not and you include the final cost of the product to consumers. It's hard to find GM data before bankruptcy, but if you analyize GM vs Toyota the year that they were virtually identical in sales, and know that Toyota employs about 140k vs. GM's 300k at the time (roughtly)- when you actually look at the cost to build a car, you will quicly see that it costs Toyota about $5000 MORE to build their cars that GM does. They manage to sell them for $9000 more, which is why Toyota makes money, and GM did not. But if Toyota has half the employees of GM, and we do know that on a whole, the pay is slightly less at a Toyota plant, yet they somehow spend THAT much more money on a car??? Yea, Labor isn't THE issue. AN issue, sure- I'll grant you that. But it's not THE issure, therefor the whole Anti-Union stance tends to be way over stated. does the UAW have problems, and do they defend poor workers? Sure- there's no denying that. But it's not the reason GM and Chrysler went into bankrupcy, and why Ford struggled. There were a lot of other reasons. Union labor isn't killing the US. And if you kill union labor, I do hope that you don't expect them to buy whatever you are trying to sell.

thankyou for a more balanced viewpoint.

Are unions perfect? no.. do they take advantage of their "employees"? yes. Do they take advantage of the companies they are contracted out to... yes.

But on the opposite side of that coin.. businesses do the same. The differences is the company wants to make as much profit as they can for their shareholders where the union wants to make as much profit as they can for their people. The differences is that the money from the unions generally gets spent around the area of the workplace. Just look at detroit before the carmakers pulled out and the place went into the toilet

mad_machine wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

ThePhranc wrote:

mad_machine wrote: can we not jump on the no union bandwagon... yes, there are some bad ones.. but most fly under the radar because they do not do anything that makes them look bad. IATSE, the one I belong to, is one of them

Its the cost of unions. They cost more, a lot more because of overinflated wages. More so when its "scale" wages for government work. And there is absolutely nothing that justifies those higher costs.

Cost more, sure. But you overstate how much more the cost really is. For the most part, I think a LOT of people over state the cost of labor when it comes to union vs. not and you include the final cost of the product to consumers. It's hard to find GM data before bankruptcy, but if you analyize GM vs Toyota the year that they were virtually identical in sales, and know that Toyota employs about 140k vs. GM's 300k at the time (roughtly)- when you actually look at the cost to build a car, you will quicly see that it costs Toyota about $5000 MORE to build their cars that GM does. They manage to sell them for $9000 more, which is why Toyota makes money, and GM did not. But if Toyota has half the employees of GM, and we do know that on a whole, the pay is slightly less at a Toyota plant, yet they somehow spend THAT much more money on a car??? Yea, Labor isn't THE issue. AN issue, sure- I'll grant you that. But it's not THE issure, therefor the whole Anti-Union stance tends to be way over stated. does the UAW have problems, and do they defend poor workers? Sure- there's no denying that. But it's not the reason GM and Chrysler went into bankrupcy, and why Ford struggled. There were a lot of other reasons. Union labor isn't killing the US. And if you kill union labor, I do hope that you don't expect them to buy whatever you are trying to sell.

thankyou for a more balanced viewpoint. Are unions perfect? no.. do they take advantage of their "employees"? yes. Do they take advantage of the companies they are contracted out to... yes. But on the opposite side of that coin.. businesses do the same. The differences is the company wants to make as much profit as they can for their shareholders where the union wants to make as much profit as they can for their people. The differences is that the money from the unions generally gets spent around the area of the workplace. Just look at detroit before the carmakers pulled out and the place went into the toilet

The unions want to make as much money for the unions as they can. That the workers make more is a byproduct. Remember the more a worker makes the more the union makes. That money from the unions get spent in state capitals and DC. Look at Detroit and look at the South were Kia is. If Kia closes that money goes away and they don't have a union.

sounds like a worthwhile by product to me.

And you have to admit.. a lot of big business money goes to state capitals and DC too

racerfink wrote: a bunch of stuff

None of this is a "unions are bad" problem. These are intra-organizational problems that you and your fellow employees need to address within your union. I agree with you that sometimes organizations get too large and powerful to serve the needs of the individual people within that organization, and thus there needs to exist some sort of mechanism for the aggrieved members of that organization to collectively petition that organization to serve them better... WAIT, WHAT? UNIONCEPTION!!!

Address, as in I get told, shut up, or we'll make you shut up?