Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 3:18:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by husagafella on Oct 25, 2014 7:44:38 GMT -5
You forgot, should we care  . |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 25, 2014 7:45:20 GMT -5
Cheer for higher private sector membership as mostly a balance can be struck between the union and owners.
Its hard but it can be done.
However public sector unions join with politicians (mostly Democrats)and are a ravenous cancer on the taxpayers wallet.
As well as any workers that do not want to belong to a union or to be forced to pay dues to a union.
They deserve nothing but condemnation as a criminal conspiracy designed to buy votes in exchange for fattening union coffers.
There never can be a balance in this relationship until the political jurisdiction goes broke, then its too late for tax payers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 25, 2014 12:02:55 GMT -5
Unions have done too good of a job helping their own members... and employees of other non-union businesses without unions... by securing better wages and benefits for those members they represent... and employees in other non-union businesses they don't represent because those employers are paying better wages and benefits... just to keep the unions out... works well for the union employee AND the non-union employee...
Membership is down in the private sector because... after securing all those good wages and benefits for their members... those same members don't think they need the union anymore... (until they get in trouble with the company)... and withdraw their membership so they can get it for free... or don't sign up when they get that good job... then sit around in their nice homes, driving their nice cars, all paid for by good hard-earned union wages... and bitch about welfare recipients... a group of which they, unknowingly, have become a part themselves...
Thank God they were there... or we wouldn't even have a middle class...
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 25, 2014 14:30:26 GMT -5
Ok now address the public sector unions and the evils of their symbiotic relationship with politicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 25, 2014 17:59:09 GMT -5
Ok now address the public sector unions and the evils of their symbiotic relationship with politicians. I am not high on public sector unions... I have stated that here numerous times... they don't have any balls (the right to strike)... nor can they negotiate directly with their employer (the government)... as the taxpayers are the ones who fund (capital) the government... and contract provisions are often dependent on politics... |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 25, 2014 19:18:28 GMT -5
I don't remember you having stated that, but Ill take you word for it,
To forgo you telling us who you had lunch with or whatever your "proof" is for the day.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 25, 2014 19:28:23 GMT -5
I don't remember you having stated that, but Ill take you word for it, To forgo you telling us who you had lunch with or whatever your "proof" is for the day. You don't remember a lot of things I've said and done... maybe it's your age... but then why should I give a damn... |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Oct 25, 2014 21:09:35 GMT -5
Because it gives you an excuse to post?
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 26, 2014 2:23:15 GMT -5
Because it gives you an excuse to post? I don't need an excuse... it was you who asked me for a response... I gave you one... an honest one... and then it was you who smarted off... not me... without a single word with regard to my response to your request... thank you... |
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Oct 26, 2014 6:20:14 GMT -5
Ok now address the public sector unions and the evils of their symbiotic relationship with politicians. I am not high on public sector unions... I have stated that here numerous times... they don't have any balls (the right to strike)... nor can they negotiate directly with their employer (the government)... as the taxpayers are the ones who fund (capital) the government... and contract provisions are often dependent on politics... Good post. Yet, it seems as though 'private sector' unionism is effectively no longer a factor. Only in sectors that are favorite sons of government. The future and 'hope' of unionism appears to be government employment only. I like your reasons why you are not keen, but from my limited viewpoint those very objections seem to be why unionism is and will thrive in the government sector. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 26, 2014 14:17:33 GMT -5
I am not high on public sector unions... I have stated that here numerous times... they don't have any balls (the right to strike)... nor can they negotiate directly with their employer (the government)... as the taxpayers are the ones who fund (capital) the government... and contract provisions are often dependent on politics... Good post. Yet, it seems as though 'private sector' unionism is effectively no longer a factor. Only in sectors that are favorite sons of government. The future and 'hope' of unionism appears to be government employment only. I like your reasons why you are not keen, but from my limited viewpoint those very objections seem to be why unionism is and will thrive in the government sector. Any thoughts? Unionism is still effective where it can be found in the private sector... but unfortunately, it's own members are joining the "get something for nothing" crew... when those numbers get low enough within a particular unit, the union's effectiveness will diminish... most unionized employees still support the union when contract time rolls around so they can get as much as they can... As for the public sector... the numbers are growing there simply because they have not been targeted for union membership so much in the past... and while some government workers do get good wages and benefits... some very good... there are just as many other who don't... some barely above the MW with very little benefits... my own former union (CWA) has made a MAJOR effort to organize in the public sector over the last 10-15 years... and have been very successful... efforts in the private sector have not been near so good... for the reasons I stated earlier... they've already got theirs... like me... but I've always worked hard for those "have nots"... Public sector rank in file are not fully aware of what they can and can't do with a union in place... some of their expectations and hopes are way too high... and on the other hand some are way too low... so far the "highs" have it because public sector membership is well above 30% and growing... while those in the private sector... who do know... are declining... because much of the work has already been done in establishing those good wages and benefits for their members... and some are taking it for granted... |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 26, 2014 16:18:18 GMT -5
Unions have done too good of a job helping their own members... and employees of other non-union businesses without unions... by securing better wages and benefits for those members they represent... and employees in other non-union businesses they don't represent because those employers are paying better wages and benefits... just to keep the unions out... works well for the union employee AND the non-union employee... And what happens when those wages and benefits begin to evaporate? That's right, union membership will rise again. Like everything else, it is cyclical. Also, a number of things unions fought for, like safer working conditions, are now legislated, so employees truly do not need the union. On the other hand, if employers don't get too greedy, then the union will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish and truly will no longer be needed. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 26, 2014 16:53:10 GMT -5
Unions have done too good of a job helping their own members... and employees of other non-union businesses without unions... by securing better wages and benefits for those members they represent... and employees in other non-union businesses they don't represent because those employers are paying better wages and benefits... just to keep the unions out... works well for the union employee AND the non-union employee... And what happens when those wages and benefits begin to evaporate? That's right, union membership will rise again. Like everything else, it is cyclical. Also, a number of things unions fought for, like safer working conditions, are now legislated, so employees truly do not need the union. On the other hand, if employers don't get too greedy, then the union will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish and truly will no longer be needed. Yes, EY... I will agree that many of the things we have fought for for years are now legislated... that's why it's important that unions be involved in politics... no thanks to those "non-members" and "agency fee payers" who don't want those benefits legislated for them due to the union's political involvement... or who want those same things but have other union brothers and sisters pay for it... and yes, when wages stagnate... or don't keep up with inflation/the cost of living, unions do work for a better wage... but only as long as the company can afford it... the union will never not be needed because working agreements are only good for a specific period of time and must be re-negotiated... and the companies are not very good at upholding their end of the "working agreement"... leading to the grievance procedure... And don't forget... any benefit or protection gained at the bargaining table... or in the state house... or the U.S. Congress... can be lost with the stroke of a pin... or a change in administration... or an "executive order"... diligence is always necessary... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 28, 2014 6:27:21 GMT -5
I was hoping for more "discussion"... did I say it that well?...
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Oct 28, 2014 9:05:09 GMT -5
And what happens when those wages and benefits begin to evaporate? That's right, union membership will rise again. Like everything else, it is cyclical. Also, a number of things unions fought for, like safer working conditions, are now legislated, so employees truly do not need the union. On the other hand, if employers don't get too greedy, then the union will have accomplished what it set out to accomplish and truly will no longer be needed. Yes, EY... I will agree that many of the things we have fought for for years are now legislated... that's why it's important that unions be involved in politics... no thanks to those "non-members" and "agency fee payers" who don't want those benefits legislated for them due to the union's political involvement... or who want those same things but have other union brothers and sisters pay for it... and yes, when wages stagnate... or don't keep up with inflation/the cost of living, unions do work for a better wage... but only as long as the company can afford it... the union will never not be needed because working agreements are only good for a specific period of time and must be re-negotiated... and the companies are not very good at upholding their end of the "working agreement"... leading to the grievance procedure... And don't forget... any benefit or protection gained at the bargaining table... or in the state house... or the U.S. Congress... can be lost with the stroke of a pin... or a change in administration... or an "executive order"... diligence is always necessary... The problem is that unions have become nothing more than money laundering scams for Democrats. The Dems give tax money and perks to unions, and the unions turn around and give dues money to Democrats. And pressure their serfs to vote Dem. Too many people are waking up to the destruction that Dems are imposing on the country, so unions are losing their power. |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Oct 28, 2014 9:47:37 GMT -5
Yes, EY... I will agree that many of the things we have fought for for years are now legislated... that's why it's important that unions be involved in politics... I don't like that either unions or corporations have great political influence. I would prefer that they seek to persuade their memberships, who individual decide whether or not to approach their legislators. Unions and corporations are not voters and should not have political power. They also do not aggregate voters - what they do is speak with the leadership's voice, which may not be the rank-and-file members' voice. yes, when wages stagnate... or don't keep up with inflation/the cost of living, unions do work for a better wage... but only as long as the company can afford it... The only union I have personal experience with (a local of the IBEW) wasn't interested in whether the employer could afford their demands or not. They wanted what they wanted, and they felt they were entitled to it by virtue of having the power to threaten a crippling strike. Unions walk a fine line between demanding good treatment for their members, and extortion. They have to be careful to care about crossing that line, and they have to not cross it. the union will never not be needed because working agreements are only good for a specific period of time and must be re-negotiated... and the companies are not very good at upholding their end of the "working agreement"... leading to the grievance procedure... And don't forget... any benefit or protection gained at the bargaining table... or in the state house... or the U.S. Congress... can be lost with the stroke of a pin... or a change in administration... or an "executive order"... diligence is always necessary... True, but... do you really think legislators are going to remove safety protections? Those kinds of things are only likely to become more stringent (as, for an example, new hazards stand revealed). I don't believe unions should be permitted to demand money from non-members, and I don't believe that non-members should automatically receive the benefits and wages the union negotiates for its members. Let the market sort those matters out. The unions probably favor compulsory dues because that's easier than constantly having to prove their value. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 28, 2014 10:34:06 GMT -5
Yes, EY... I will agree that many of the things we have fought for for years are now legislated... that's why it's important that unions be involved in politics... no thanks to those "non-members" and "agency fee payers" who don't want those benefits legislated for them due to the union's political involvement... or who want those same things but have other union brothers and sisters pay for it... and yes, when wages stagnate... or don't keep up with inflation/the cost of living, unions do work for a better wage... but only as long as the company can afford it... the union will never not be needed because working agreements are only good for a specific period of time and must be re-negotiated... and the companies are not very good at upholding their end of the "working agreement"... leading to the grievance procedure... And don't forget... any benefit or protection gained at the bargaining table... or in the state house... or the U.S. Congress... can be lost with the stroke of a pin... or a change in administration... or an "executive order"... diligence is always necessary... The problem is that unions have become nothing more than money laundering scams for Democrats. The Dems give tax money and perks to unions, and the unions turn around and give dues money to Democrats. And pressure their serfs to vote Dem. Too many people are waking up to the destruction that Dems are imposing on the country, so unions are losing their power. Most every sentence here is not true... but I'm not even gonna try to get into it today... resting after my doctor visit this AM... I will say that unions primarily support Democrats because Democrats support more issues of importance to union members... what would you expect?... and like I said here earlier... private sector unions are losing membership primarily because unions have done too good of a job for those members... |
|
|
|
Post by darave on Oct 28, 2014 10:39:46 GMT -5
I would never join a union be a man and stand on your own two feet and fight your own fight at your work place.
|
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 28, 2014 10:51:38 GMT -5
Yes, EY... I will agree that many of the things we have fought for for years are now legislated... that's why it's important that unions be involved in politics... I don't like that either unions or corporations have great political influence. I would prefer that they seek to persuade their memberships, who individual decide whether or not to approach their legislators. Unions and corporations are not voters and should not have political power. They also do not aggregate voters - what they do is speak with the leadership's voice, which may not be the rank-and-file members' voice. yes, when wages stagnate... or don't keep up with inflation/the cost of living, unions do work for a better wage... but only as long as the company can afford it... The only union I have personal experience with (a local of the IBEW) wasn't interested in whether the employer could afford their demands or not. They wanted what they wanted, and they felt they were entitled to it by virtue of having the power to threaten a crippling strike. Unions walk a fine line between demanding good treatment for their members, and extortion. They have to be careful to care about crossing that line, and they have to not cross it. the union will never not be needed because working agreements are only good for a specific period of time and must be re-negotiated... and the companies are not very good at upholding their end of the "working agreement"... leading to the grievance procedure... And don't forget... any benefit or protection gained at the bargaining table... or in the state house... or the U.S. Congress... can be lost with the stroke of a pin... or a change in administration... or an "executive order"... diligence is always necessary... True, but... do you really think legislators are going to remove safety protections? Those kinds of things are only likely to become more stringent (as, for an example, new hazards stand revealed). I don't believe unions should be permitted to demand money from non-members, and I don't believe that non-members should automatically receive the benefits and wages the union negotiates for its members. Let the market sort those matters out. The unions probably favor compulsory dues because that's easier than constantly having to prove their value. My last 30 or so years as a union member, I worked part time as a union lobbyist... I worked for general issues with regard to union members and most all of that time those issues were important to most all my members... I can't think of a single one that wasn't... You mention IBEW... IBEW represents/represented workers that my former union, CWA did/does... I don't agree with you claim that they "don't care whether their employer can afford their demands or not"... that would be very foolish... and I've never seen that happen in actual situations... As for removing safety protections?... yes, I do believe they would... and have... we had legislation at one time that required that a single employee could not be required to work in a "manhole" alone... extremely dangerous... (it actually would take 3 to work safely)... I also saw that legislation taken away... putting a single employee back in a manhole alone, risking his/her life every time they do... and we had some VERY close calls... As for that "demanded money"... that money is based on only contract negotiations and protection... NO politics... although I agree with you that non-members should NOT share in the benefits of a union negotiated contract if they don't pay their fair share of the associated costs... |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 28, 2014 10:55:46 GMT -5
I would never join a union be a man and stand on your own two feet and fight your own fight at your work place. Your choice... as always... I've seen more than a few former employees say that very same thing as they walked out the door... terminated or suspended for frivolous or no reason at all... that I could have helped keep their jobs had I been their union rep and they had a working agreement... "Being a man"... doesn't always get one fairness... |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Oct 28, 2014 11:26:45 GMT -5
The problem is that unions have become nothing more than money laundering scams for Democrats. The Dems give tax money and perks to unions, and the unions turn around and give dues money to Democrats. And pressure their serfs to vote Dem. Too many people are waking up to the destruction that Dems are imposing on the country, so unions are losing their power. Most every sentence here is not true... but I'm not even gonna try to get into it today... resting after my doctor visit this AM... I will say that unions primarily support Democrats because Democrats support more issues of importance to union members... what would you expect?... and like I said here earlier... private sector unions are losing membership primarily because unions have done too good of a job for those members... Redleg is so obviously correct with his statement that your response is laughable. The Democrats have been a nightmare for union rank and file. They support organizing and union leadership and public sector growth. However, when it comes to labor job creation, they oppose important infrastructure projects like Keystone XL, and their corporate tax policies are the main reason corporations have been so busy 'inverting' and sending jobs overseas. The reason private sector unionism is declining is because potential members understand that the union only looks after itself, at the expense of its members. In short, workers no longer join unions, because they know doing so is against their best interests. Democrats DO empower union leadership, and that is repaid by the leadership with donations from their treasuries. Unions give almost exclusively to Democrats. They are the primary funding source of the party. Yet the democrats are primarily focused on keeping inner city aborton mills unregulated, open and busy... And whatever nonsense the Eco-crowd is spouting this week. The first is probably irrelevant to union members. The latter is almost exclusively detrimental to them. Unions ARE a money laundering operation for the Party. Their continued monolithic support for a party platform that so badly damages the working class is proof that they ignore the needs of their members in favor of the party. Sadly, because the unions put all their eggs in the Democrat basket, that party ignores them, and the GOP has written them off. |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Oct 28, 2014 11:32:38 GMT -5
More bull sh!!t from someone who's elevator doesn't even leave the bottom floor...
No reason to make a real response... like talking to a fence post...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Oct 28, 2014 15:53:02 GMT -5
More bull sh!!t from someone who's elevator doesn't even leave the bottom floor... No reason to make a real response... like talking to a fence post... Awwww... Hit too close to home, did I? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 18:28:06 GMT -5
I would never join a union be a man and stand on your own two feet and fight your own fight at your work place. Your choice... as always... I've seen more than a few former employees say that very same thing as they walked out the door... terminated or suspended for frivolous or no reason at all... that I could have helped keep their jobs had I been their union rep and they had a working agreement... "Being a man"... doesn't always get one fairness... I've worked in the construction trades, agriculture, manufacturing government and occupational safety for over 45 years total, I can honestly say that I've never seen an employee fired or suspended whom did not deserve it.
Union or non union does not signify, my statement applies to both.
But then, I have no obligation to explain or prove anything to you... 
|
|
.
