Freeing Workers from Union Bosses

[misterman]

Anti union just wants the U.S. workers to end up like China where children can be forced to work 15 hour days for pennies until they die.

Exactly. It's their strategy for reviving our economy.

 

[Gary]

Anti union just wants the U.S. workers to end up like China where children can be forced to work 15 hour days for pennies until they die.

These types are constantly against the working class on every issue and they're consistent with each other, showing no individual thought to come to a conclusion. This is more Republicanism than conservativism.

 

[Gary]

Exactly. It's their strategy for reviving our economy.

Right, you're going to continue to reduce wages, until the market shrinks and small businesses go under!

 

[Tigger]

Exactly. It's their strategy for reviving our economy.

They problem with that can be clearly seen in the company I work for.... In the last 5 years this company has re-organized TWICE. In both cases customer service, work process and flow, morale, etc... were NOT the points of the re-organization. PROFIT ALONE was. The first re-organization prompted three different departments to Unionize (Engineering, T&D Technical Services, and Relay) in order to protect ourselves from the obvious stupidity of the upper echelon Management. We all realized that the way they wanted to do business had nothing to do with efficiency or putting out a good product, only with ensuring a certain profit margin. To this end, they cut 1200 non-union jobs last year; the last of whom they cut loose less than one week before Hurricane Irene hit. Then they wondered why we didn't have the staff to deal with the storm.

At this point in time, it is very difficult for ANY sensible employee to TRUST that their employer is actually interested in their welfare at all. I was never a proponent of Unionization until I saw what this compan wanted to do to out Department, and why. It's pretty interesting when the company doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that they couldn't care any less about the employees, customers, or business; only the profit margin.

 

[misterman]

Right, you're going to continue to reduce wages, until the market shrinks and small businesses go under!

What could go wrong?

 

[Gary]

What could go wrong?

Nothing, if your plan is to wreck the economy!

 

[KevinKohler]

No one is telling you to join a union. This isn't the USSR, you can choose not to work there.

Yeah? What about in a town like Shelton, CT, home to Sikorsky? Place employs 2/3s of the entire damn town, man. And makes living there impossible, UNLESS you work at Sikorsky...because they get paid 30 bucks an hour, or more, for menial labor...and as such, can afford to pay more for houses, cars, etc...and it shows. A house in Shelton costs over 300K, and that SAME house in another town, on the same amount of property, etc, costs 175K.

I thought you liberals were anti discrimination?

 

[Tigger]

Yeah? What about in a town like Shelton, CT, home to Sikorsky? Place employs 2/3s of the entire damn town, man. And makes living there impossible, UNLESS you work at Sikorsky...because they get paid 30 bucks an hour, or more, for menial labor...and as such, can afford to pay more for houses, cars, etc...and it shows. A house in Shelton costs over 300K, and that SAME house in another town, on the same amount of property, etc, costs 175K.

Okay. Let's go to the other end of that spectrum..... We De-Unionize Sikorski overnight. They bring in a more automated workforce, cut 50% of the labor and cut the remaining half down to $9 an hour. Suddenly Shelton turns into a ghost town like Detroit because nobody can afford to live there (or anywhere near there) anymore. Not a great option if you ask me. The only people who win in that equation are the Sikorski executives.

 

[misterman]

Yeah? What about in a town like Shelton, CT, home to Sikorsky? Place employs 2/3s of the entire damn town, man. And makes living there impossible, UNLESS you work at Sikorsky...because they get paid 30 bucks an hour, or more, for menial labor...and as such, can afford to pay more for houses, cars, etc...and it shows. A house in Shelton costs over 300K, and that SAME house in another town, on the same amount of property, etc, costs 175K.

So now you're complaining because people make too much money?

 

[KevinKohler]

Okay. Let's go to the other end of that spectrum..... We De-Unionize Sikorski overnight. They bring in a more automated workforce, cut 50% of the labor and cut the remaining half down to $9 an hour. Suddenly Shelton turns into a ghost town like Detroit because nobody can afford to live there (or anywhere near there) anymore. Not a great option if you ask me. The only people who win in that equation are the Sikorski executives.

And the tax payers, who likely would no longer have to pay over 20 mil per military craft, lol.

I'm not saying to de-unionize. I'm saying to remove the government from the equation. Workers have the right to become a collective, as long as coersion is not involved. But they DON'T have a right to extort from the companies they work at, with the backing of uncle sam. I said it before, and I'll say it again to you, and see what you think...


If a work force in a company decides, as a collective, that they are underpaid, and go on strike, they have that right to do so. But the company should ALSO have the right to fire every one of them WITHOUT incurring huge unemployment costs, legal fees, and out right fines, as a result. Last time I looked, not showing up to work for a scheduled period is grounds to fire someone, yes? And striking = not showing up to work...unless they are using sick time to do it, lol. So, once the collective makes their choice to strike, the company now has 2 choices...fire every one, rehire, and retrain...or negotiate. The company is going to choose the cheaper of the 2 options. If firing everyone, rehiring, and retraining, which would result in 0 production for a while, which KILLS profit, costs MORE than giving the raise, they are going to give the raise. BUT...if firing, rehiring, and retraining costs LESS, DESPITE the period of time it takes to get production back up...that tells me that those workers were asking for TOO MUCH. If it doesn't take long to retrain, and there are ample people willing to fill those spots after the mass firing, then that tells me those jobs aren't really worth that much.

If THAT turns shelton into a ghost town, that tells me that Shelton was a giant bubble in the first place. That it's affluence was unnatural to begin with.

 

[haymarket]

The only words which really matter from the OP article

it’s a sure loser

 

[KevinKohler]

So now you're complaining because people make too much money?

I'm complaining that, with uncle sam's backing, the equilibrium has been thrown out of whack.

AND on YOU'RE dime, bub. Don't look now...but there is only one customer for the products that Sikorsky makes...and it's the government. And last time I checked...they buy stuff with tax dollars.

 

[KevinKohler]

The only words which really matter from the OP article

it’s a sure loser

That is everything I've come to expect on this DEBATE forum, from you. No wonder you have made 15K posts....they all amount to THIS...0 thought, 0 effort, and 0 meaning.

 

[misterman]

I'm complaining that, with uncle sam's backing, the equilibrium has been thrown out of whack.

So you think everyone should be more poor? :lol:

AND on YOU'RE dime, bub. Don't look now...but there is only one customer for the products that Sikorsky makes...and it's the government. And last time I checked...they buy stuff with tax dollars.

Yep. And all those workers go out and spend that money, and that helps me by supporting the economy, which means I make more money, and so on. Econ 101.

 

[Tigger]

I'm not saying to de-unionize. I'm saying to remove the government from the equation. Workers have the right to become a collective, as long as coersion is not involved. But they DON'T have a right to extort from the companies they work at, with the backing of uncle sam. I said it before, and I'll say it again to you, and see what you think....

The government got involved in the equation because the employers liked to use other means to settle strikes. Illegal means.... scabs, union busters, head busters, etc.... Do you somehow think it would be different today?

If a work force in a company decides, as a collective, that they are underpaid, and go on strike, they have that right to do so. But the company should ALSO have the right to fire every one of them WITHOUT incurring huge unemployment costs, legal fees, and out right fines, as a result. Last time I looked, not showing up to work for a scheduled period is grounds to fire someone, yes? And striking = not showing up to work...unless they are using sick time to do it, lol. So, once the collective makes their choice to strike, the company now has 2 choices...fire every one, rehire, and retrain...or negotiate. The company is going to choose the cheaper of the 2 options. If firing everyone, rehiring, and retraining, which would result in 0 production for a while, which KILLS profit, costs MORE than giving the raise, they are going to give the raise. BUT...if firing, rehiring, and retraining costs LESS, DESPITE the period of time it takes to get production back up...that tells me that those workers were asking for TOO MUCH. If it doesn't take long to retrain, and there are ample people willing to fill those spots after the mass firing, then that tells me those jobs aren't really worth that much.

Small problem with that, Kevin. See, that company AGREED, IN WRITING, that the work those people do is Union work. To fire and simply replace them is a significant breach of the contract. On the other hand, there are only certain circumstances in which those Union workers are allowed to walk off the job. There's a balance to it that many non-union people don't quite get. The contract I work under is coming to an end in May of 2013, and I expect there's going to be a fight over the new contract. I've been telling people to put their pennies aside because they may need them next Spring if we have to walk out of negotiations.

 

[KevinKohler]

The government got involved in the equation because the employers liked to use other means to settle strikes. Illegal means.... scabs, union busters, head busters, etc.... Do you somehow think it would be different today?



Small problem with that, Kevin. See, that company AGREED, IN WRITING, that the work those people do is Union work. To fire and simply replace them is a significant breach of the contract. On the other hand, there are only certain circumstances in which those Union workers are allowed to walk off the job. There's a balance to it that many non-union people don't quite get. The contract I work under is coming to an end in May of 2013, and I expect there's going to be a fight over the new contract. I've been telling people to put their pennies aside because they may need them next Spring if we have to walk out of negotiations.

And when you walk out of negotiations, that company should have every right to replace you all with "scabs".

 

[haymarket]

That is everything I've come to expect on this DEBATE forum, from you. No wonder you have made 15K posts....they all amount to THIS...0 thought, 0 effort, and 0 meaning.

How does making a personal attack against me change the important words of the OP article?

it’s a sure loser

Would you prefer me to use a thousand words when the four were absolute perfection?

 

[Tigger]

And when you walk out of negotiations, that company should have every right to replace you all with "scabs".

Okay. Then what should be the penalty when THE COMPANY walks away from the table, or refuses to bargain in good faith?

 

[KevinKohler]

Okay. Then what should be the penalty when THE COMPANY walks away from the table, or refuses to bargain in good faith?

Before I answer this, let's back up a bit, to when the contract was signed, or agreed to by the company. I can't imagine ANY company would agree, WILLINGLY, to a contract that so removes their freedom to operate as they choose, when it comes to their employees...so, a question. DID the company have a choice in the matter? I was always under the impression that they DON'T. For instance, in order to unionize, I have to have a percentage of workers within the company agreeable to doing so, sign a petition, or whatever, do a few government forms, etc...and then...ONLY then, am I required to bring any of this to the companies attention. At which point, I was under the impression I can FORCE the issue through.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, I'd just like to point out that any contract signed under duress is not valid.

 

[misterman]

Before I answer this, let's back up a bit, to when the contract was signed, or agreed to by the company. I can't imagine ANY company would agree, WILLINGLY, to a contract that so removes their freedom to operate as they choose, when it comes to their employees

Of course they would. Happens all the time. It's what they give. It's a negotiation.

so, a question. DID the company have a choice in the matter? I was always under the impression that they DON'T. For instance, in order to unionize, I have to have a percentage of workers within the company agreeable to doing so, sign a petition, or whatever, do a few government forms, etc...and then...ONLY then, am I required to bring any of this to the companies attention. At which point, I was under the impression I can FORCE the issue through.

You can't force anything. The company negotiates the contract.

You're talking about organizing, apparently.

 

[KevinKohler]

Of course they would. Happens all the time. It's what they give. It's a negotiation.



You can't force anything. The company negotiates the contract.

You're talking about organizing, apparently.

Steps to Creating a Union Workplace

According to this, the employer is not given much choice on the matter, in the formation of a union.

"Once your union is officially certified, your employer will be legally required to negotiate in good faith with your union to obtain a written, legally binding contract covering all aspects of your employment."

And from there, they are more or less screwed...because "negotiate in good faith" means paying out the ass for firing workers on strike, above and beyond the obvious factors of having to hire and train new staff, and the lack of production in the meantime.

 

[Tigger]

Before I answer this, let's back up a bit, to when the contract was signed, or agreed to by the company. I can't imagine ANY company would agree, WILLINGLY, to a contract that so removes their freedom to operate as they choose, when it comes to their employees...so, a question. DID the company have a choice in the matter? I was always under the impression that they DON'T. For instance, in order to unionize, I have to have a percentage of workers within the company agreeable to doing so, sign a petition, or whatever, do a few government forms, etc...and then...ONLY then, am I required to bring any of this to the companies attention. At which point, I was under the impression I can FORCE the issue through.

Am I wrong? And if I'm not, I'd just like to point out that any contract signed under duress is not valid.

Yes, actually you are wrong. When a group seeks to organize they are required to sit down with the Company and discuss it. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement on whether or not the department/company should be allowed to organize, then the NLRB may get involved. It does not always end up going forward. Even if it's allowed to go forward, the group may not get enough support to carry a vote/card campaign (generally about 65% for an initial organizing drive). In most cases the Company is allowed to market their cause to the workers as much as the union is during this time. The main exception to that is generally situations where there is already a union in-house and their contract includes a clause saying the company cannot do so. This situation still requires an agreement between the company and union as to the particulars of the organizing drive.

 

[Higgins86]

I would love a union backing me up, workers have no support in New Hampshire

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes, actually you are wrong. When a group seeks to organize they are required to sit down with the Company and discuss it. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement on whether or not the department/company should be allowed to organize, then the NLRB may get involved. It does not always end up going forward. Even if it's allowed to go forward, the group may not get enough support to carry a vote/card campaign (generally about 65% for an initial organizing drive). In most cases the Company is allowed to market their cause to the workers as much as the union is during this time. The main exception to that is generally situations where there is already a union in-house and their contract includes a clause saying the company cannot do so. This situation still requires an agreement between the company and union as to the particulars of the organizing drive.

Steps to Creating a Union Workplace

This begs to differ. Essentially, so long as you have enough support from enough employees of the company, there is nothing really, that a company can do to prevent the formation of a Union.

 

[Boo Radley]

Actually believing in the benefits of competition make it easier for one to occasionally maintain optimism about the future. Bad policies and structures will eventually die out.

The Weekly Standard? Well, they do support the national attack on workers. Hooray.

Well, just ahd to laugh at that. Hayes still works for them, doesn't he? And wasn't he wrong on a few things?

Anyway, just passing by and wanted to thank you CP for the laugh. :coffeepap