are you saying i'm incorrect in my estimation that you dislike freeloaders?I suspect you are always "correct" in rationalizing your own behavior.
the irony of you not comprehending my words after commenting on my comprehension is amusing.I do NOT get your attempt in insulting me by calling me right wing. Can you explain that so it makes sense?
Closed shops should be banned outright. However, unions should be under zero obligation to represent non-union workers. They haven't paid for the privilege. If a shop has both, so be it.
The only caveat I would put is that a union contract cannot address the non-union workers in ANY way whatsoever. That includes banning language that would guarentee union workers the highest pay. No, if management wants to reward good employees with higher pay, that's fine. Union workers can either choose to quit the union and work for greater potential or they can choose stay in their union safety net.
And as you're clearly saying here, it's all about choice, right?
Or, is it just they "choice" you would like to see?
Henrin is right, you're making no sense. Pay comes from revenue/profits. And management gets more control because management is taking more risk.
Not to mention you seem to think that management does no work whatsoever. Who do you think coordinates everything and makes sure it functions properly? That stuff doesn't just happen in a vacuum. No, it takes qualified and competent people who work just as hard, albeit not as physical, as everyone else.
I know a guy... strong union guy... who was employed by a trucking distribution facility. He commonly and proudly boasted that he pumped gas for $24/hr. He proudly boasted that his job description was so limited that, if there were no truck to pump gas into, he could pretty much just do nothing as long as he wasn't overtly just standing around. He proudly boasted that if management got on his case for *anything*, the union would go to bat for him, even when he knew management was in the right (and he would let them). And when asked directly by me, he admitted he was way overpaid considering the level of skill and work that was required of him, but because he could get away with it, he was a strong union guy.
Who's the freeloader?
(This was in the 1990s, in the interest of full disclosure.)
no. that is union busting 101
paying non-union more than union undermines the union
with more than 5000 work sites in the USA, you think not one of them wants to unionize, and there is no effort put into denying unionization?Great for the non-unions members. Unions are not dwindling because there is an evil conspiracy, it is just because unions serve no helpful purpose, especially to those that are forced to be in them.
Same with union folks that work in my area - I put in a ticket to stretch about 1,800 feet of dual mode fiber between two buildings. I call a week later asking how things are going and a former employee (retired but now a contractor) says the ticket is still open because the tech is too busy playing online cards - my ticket was one of three open. He was paid to actually play cards, did very little work and was fully backed by the IBEW, since he has up to 2 weeks to address new tickets due to his "work load".
At peronal risk to my job and the retired contractor, we stretched the fiber ourselves, labeled and connected after 6 pm and the ticket was cancelled. No questions were ever asked.
with more than 5000 work sites in the USA, you think not one of them wants to unionize, and there is no effort put into denying unionization?
Because getting some politicians to do your bidding when you throw a bunch of money their way is hard.
Nope, just a law enforcing it.
speaks to management incompetence
well yeah a central focus of law is to regulate and enforce agreements...
Without government enforced unionization, unions would only be in very small sectors with highly skilled workers. Stamping sheet metal and teaching kids to finger paint is not highly skilled in anyway. The overwhelming vast majority of union members are in monkeys can be trained to do this jobs.
Management can't do a thing - the employee files a grievance, the union backs their laziness ... the amount of documentation and evidence to win at a grievance is fairly high and when a manager has a real need of these guys to work, they suddenly develop a vague sickness or require mental evaluation with a psychologist and go on light duty required by a union physician. Even if you get them out - guess who takes their place? Someone just like the one who just left... Good management decides to bypass the unions and go with contractors.
give me a break, union contributions are nothing compared to big business.
LOL monkeys cannot fit pipe, or run telephone lines, or maintain railroad locomotives, or port cranes, or virtually any of the many professions represented. if unions demanded more money then they were worth you'd think they'd have tried monkeys long ago..
there is no one forced into paying dues without a union agreement in this country, no one.No agreement, just a law forcing payment.
there is no one forced into paying dues without a union agreement in this country, no one.
you cannot be compelled to pay someone money for nothing with no documentation.
Your point? Do you think I'm wrong that unions forced their way onto the contract?
I think you've managed to use every stereotype not back up by evidence in one post, congrats.
Except for a few cases SCOTUS has ruled on, the overwhelming vast majority of dues are forced and cannot be opted out of.
Sure you can, it happens daily with taxes.
Yes, you are wrong, there is a specific legal process to be followed to unionize. there is no force, not like in the old days when management would bring in thugs to shoot union workers anyway...
who was the management representative who allowed such BS to be negotiated under the contract?
no dues are not forced, they're accepted voluntarily with joining that workplace.
no dues are not forced, they're accepted voluntarily with joining that workplace. that's like saying you're forced to pay the Eagles club if you join, and you should just be able to hang out and get the benefits of the eagles club for free.
So employers who don't want to provide healthcare and pay a livable wage are okay? Just find another job. But employers that require workers to join a union as a condition of employment are bad?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?