Union Posts Names of Non-Members, Urges Shunning

[ludin]

let's complete that sentence
not helping the scab employee accomplish the scab employee's job duties
the union is telling the scabs, you do not want to be a part of the union, then do your work ... but do not expect union members to help you do your work
NOTHING illegal about that; no matter how much you want to whine about it

your dishonesty is proven right here. they are not scabs. they are employee's of the company.
not doing your job is what will get you fired.

actually it is because not only does it put the company at risk it puts other people at risk.
it creates a hostile work environment which is against the law.

now you want the union to be responsible for the scab's failure to follow safety rules. it does not work that way. the employee is responsible for doing their work. the union members will have each other's backs. the scab employees are own their own. because they CHOSE to work outside of the union. they made their own bed. now they get to sleep in it

It is the duty of any employee to ensure the safety of themselves and others around them union or not. if you can't do your job then you are not needed.
if you are purposely not doing it that is malicious intent and you are a threat to the safety of others and the company.

no it is not
the union members are doing nothing to harm the scabs

this proves the childish nature of union employee's.
actually they are not scabs and your continued reference to them as such shows your dishonesty.
by not helping and training them as could be required then yes you are not only hurting them but the company
and everyone else and well a company doesn't need people like you.

they are simply avoiding interacting with them beyond what the work environment requires

read the OP it says otherwise.

the union members will help each other but not the scabs.

then find another job if you don't want to do the one you are supposed to.

it is the scabs who chose not to participate in the union. and that is their choice. now they will receive the consequences of that choice to make. union members will not have their back when they need it. doesn't mean the other scabs can't help them out

WOW what a childish mentality union workers have. you are creating a hostile work environment and well
any person that does it union or not should be fired.

refusing to help another employee accomplish the other employee's job instead of their own is found by you to be grounds for termination
your posts remain laughable by the ignorance found within them

refusing to ensure that the company is properly producing correct material and training people that need training is the issue.
you not only put that person at risk but others as well including the people that end up buying the product if it is done wrong.

you work for the company not the union. if you can't do your job and help out your fellow worker when they need it union or not
then the company doesn't need you.

you should be fired for creating a hostile work environment along with job harassment.


and i suspect that union would agree with this

when those scab workers cannot do their job because the union members will not cover for them, they should be fired
maybe the new hires will be smart enough to pay union dues

not training people that you are supposed to is cause for dismissal.

 

[cpwill]

i have been in management for 25+ years

sorry...but i am on the other side

unions take initiative and drive out of the equation

i have ase mechanics that are at nearly $ 40 an hour...unheard of around the country....why.....because they are worth it, and i can charge $ 125 + per hour for their labor based on book time

i want the best employees....and am willing to pay for them

when everyone is negotiated for as a group, it minimizes the uniqueness of the individual

if you work for me, and you are one of the best, you can expect to be paid as one of the best

and i dont care what your actual job is....i just want you to be great at it

that is how you set records for revenue, and profit....people....really good people

I have an uncle who has the same philosophy.

And retired at 55 after the construction company that he created through blood, sweat, and 16 hour workdays, 7 days a week, made him a multi-millionaire.

If you were to go to his workforce and insist that they unionize... :lol: well, they probably wouldn't rough you up too much.

 

[ludin]

then, you have nothing to offer to show how the law was violated by the union

it is in the OP I shouldn't have to state what is already there and you shouldn't have read.
also I have already posted.

job harassment (posting of non-union members)
creating a hostile work environment telling people to shun their co-workers.
are illegal activities.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

so unions are fine with people in an open shop negotiating their own rates, and benefits then? right?

if not, then yes, unions WANT to represent freeloaders

it may be semantics, but you cant have it both ways

in right to work states, either you negotiate for ALL workers, and that includes non union

or you allow non union to negotiate their own wages and benefits, which according to posters on here, would be suicide for the union

so YES....unions WANT TO represent all

The intention was represent all but those people would have to pay dues not freeload. The dues could be waived so a cheaper fee can be paid depending on what kind of union you join and in what state, but the Right to work states want the union to represent the people for free.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yup.

Sad but true.

If you get a chance...take a look at a rather iconoclastic perspective I shared in another thread.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...3-wealth-distribution-168.html#post1065407738

I suspect those same people might agree with my next to last line in that post also.

Thanks for the link. My sisters and I were talking about something similiar this week. Great minds think alike!

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

i have been in management for 25+ years

sorry...but i am on the other side

unions take initiative and drive out of the equation

i have ase mechanics that are at nearly $ 40 an hour...unheard of around the country....why.....because they are worth it, and i can charge $ 125 + per hour for their labor based on book time

i want the best employees....and am willing to pay for them

when everyone is negotiated for as a group, it minimizes the uniqueness of the individual

if you work for me, and you are one of the best, you can expect to be paid as one of the best

and i dont care what your actual job is....i just want you to be great at it

that is how you set records for revenue, and profit....people....really good people

I've also read where you are the owner of this place. Your perspective would be very different from your workers.

 

[gdgyva]

The intention was represent all but those people would have to pay dues not freeload. The dues could be waived so a cheaper fee can be paid depending on what kind of union you join and in what state, but the Right to work states want the union to represent the people for free.

but why should they have to pay any fees

they chose not to join your group

as was written above, the unions basically asked the feds to set the laws to where those who choose not to join CANT negotiate for themselves....that is on you guys

that isnt the new persons issue....that is the unions

but you all want to hold it against them any way you can

you are afraid of losing the union if they are allowed to negotiate their own wages and benefits, and pissed off that they dont have to pay the dues for your union to do it for them

you HAVE to figure out a new plan....something to bring the workers back into the fold

1. reduce the fees....no way the annual fees should be so high (too many people getting rich)
2. make it appealing to join...right now it isnt....the benefits dont outweigh the costs
3. change your image....right now it is BAD....thuggery and intimidation rules the day

it is 2015, almost 2016.....time for unions to adapt or die

 

[gdgyva]

I've also read where you are the owner of this place. Your perspective would be very different from your workers.

not the owner

just the boss when the owner is away....

I head up his management team....best way i can describe my job

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you knew of a clearly illegal importer's scheme.

Did you report it?

It is likley still going on to this day and I doubt that it is llegal since Guam is a US territory:

Men's L McGregor Sweater Vest Wool Acrylic Geometric Multi Made in Guam USA | eBay

 

[fmw]

I'm sorry but that's a charity.

Yes, I know it is a charity and one with an excellent mission. It is also a business.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

but why should they have to pay any fees

they chose not to join your group

as was written above, the unions basically asked the feds to set the laws to where those who choose not to join CANT negotiate for themselves....that is on you guys

that isnt the new persons issue....that is the unions

but you all want to hold it against them any way you can

you are afraid of losing the union if they are allowed to negotiate their own wages and benefits, and pissed off that they dont have to pay the dues for your union to do it for them

you HAVE to figure out a new plan....something to bring the workers back into the fold

1. reduce the fees....no way the annual fees should be so high (too many people getting rich)
2. make it appealing to join...right now it isnt....the benefits dont outweigh the costs
3. change your image....right now it is BAD....thuggery and intimidation rules the day

it is 2015, almost 2016.....time for unions to adapt or die

The purpose of a 'union' is for collective bargaining, not for people to represent themselves. There is no use for a union if people want to work at will and do their own wheeling and dealing. While that may work in some industries, it does not work in all industries. If people don't want a union, they can basically vote one out. It sounds to me that many of these people want the union (not voting them out) but don't want to pay fees. I would have to say that may be human nature. Why pay for a service I can get for free? It is not very noble though. You are just transferring your costs onto your co-worker. The real point of this whole agument is that Right to Work laws are designed to get rid of unions.

 

[justabubba]

page 1 of 2 pages

your dishonesty is proven right here. they are not scabs. they are employee's of the company.

they are scabs because they refuse to contribute to the operation of their union

not doing your job is what will get you fired.

that is the way it should work
however, when a union is on site, the employee will be entitled to due process
the employer will have to prove that its proposed termination is justified based on the employee's actions/inactions
and that is where the employer/management will likely drop the ball
it takes work, effort, and facts to justify a disciplinary action against a union represented employee
very often, the employer/management cannot sustain their proposed discipline

actually it is because not only does it put the company at risk it puts other people at risk.

what about not assisting a co-worker in the performance of his job places anyone at physical jeopardy
your posts are becoming more foolish with each iteration

it creates a hostile work environment which is against the law.

you have been unable to show us what about not acting towards a scab as one would act towards a fellow union member constitutes the imposition of a 'hostile work environment' under the law
until you are able to make that argument, you have nothing
and you have been asked to present that argument previously, and you were unable to offer it
thus, i do not expect anything of factual value to result from your posts in this discussion
but prove me wrong, show us how not acting towards a scab as one would act towards a fellow union member constitutes the imposition of a 'hostile work environment' under the law

It is the duty of any employee to ensure the safety of themselves and others around them union or not. if you can't do your job then you are not needed.

and you - again - would be found very wrong
why should i, as an employee, have to spend my work hours monitoring every other employee to assure their personal safety
that is an impossible task made exponentially more impossible with the addition of each employee to the work environment

if you are purposely not doing it that is malicious intent and you are a threat to the safety of others and the company.

see my post immediately above
you impose an impossible condition upon the employee
to be responsible for the safety of all of the other employees within their work environment
you would want to transfer the obligation that rests upon the company, to assure the safety of its employees, to the employees themselves, and now specifically to the union member employees
your proposal is an absurd one
that seems to have become the standard for your posts

this proves the childish nature of union employee's.

not assuming the company's responsibility to assure the safety of all fellow employees is found childish
hopefully, the reader will understand why i refer to your remarks as being no better than absurd on their face

actually they are not scabs and your continued reference to them as such shows your dishonesty.

what causes them not to be found as scabs. enlighten us with your extensive expertise in things labor law related

 

[justabubba]

page 2 of 2 pages

by not helping and training them as could be required then yes you are not only hurting them but the company

nothing the union advised told the union members to not perform their jobs
but point out something they posted that says otherwise

and everyone else and well a company doesn't need people like you.

actually, i was often beneficial to my employer, by stepping in and solving problems before they erupted and had to be dealt with at the management level
unions and management do not necessarily have to maintain an adversarial relationship
but something tells me that reality is beyond your comprehension

read the OP it says otherwise.


then find another job if you don't want to do the one you are supposed to.

in no instance are the union members refusing to do their jobs. and neither has the union advised them not to do their jobs
they are refusing to do those things that are NOT their jobs to do
unless it is for the benefit of a fellow union member

WOW what a childish mentality union workers have. you are creating a hostile work environment and well
any person that does it union or not should be fired.

you keep insisting this but then you are unable to identify in what ways the union's/members' actions constitute an unlawful hostile work environment
i suspect it is because you have no understanding of what constitutes a hostile work environment, so you blabber on about that which you do not understand

refusing to ensure that the company is properly producing correct material and training people that need training is the issue.
you not only put that person at risk but others as well including the people that end up buying the product if it is done wrong.

nothing the union has advised will result in this outcome. you have nothing so you are now making **** up

you work for the company not the union.

no. the employee works for himself. he sells his labor to the employer. and if he is wise and able, he joins the union to advance that effort

if you can't do your job and help out your fellow worker when they need it union or not
then the company doesn't need you.

management should not be hiring employees who cannot do their jobs without having to lean on union members to help them perform
this is a management/employer caused problem
only you expect the union to solve it
again, a misplaced expectation without any basis in reality

you should be fired for creating a hostile work environment along with job harassment.

yes. get back to us with the legal basis for finding the union engaged in a hostile work environment and employee harassment. until you do, your posts can only be recognized as something pulled out of your ass

 

[justabubba]

it is in the OP I shouldn't have to state what is already there and you shouldn't have read.
also I have already posted.

job harassment (posting of non-union members)
creating a hostile work environment telling people to shun their co-workers.
are illegal activities.

no, nothing about that is found illegal
point out exactly what violates the law

 

[ludin]

no, nothing about that is found illegal
point out exactly what violates the law

I just did.

posting the names of employee's is
job harassment

telling them to shun their co-workers
creates a hostile work environment

these are against the law.

there I have posted them 2 times now. if you still dont' get it don't bother responding.

 

[Thrilla]

calling these workers "scabs" is incorrect.

a scab is a worker who stays on the job during a strike, or one who is brought in to maintain production while a strike is on going.


as per the topic, no one should be surprised that unions resort to such intimidation as pointed out in the OP... there has never been a time when they did not intimate or harass non-union workers.... it's literally what they do, and have always done.

 

[justabubba]

but why should they have to pay any fees

they chose not to join your group

as was written above, the unions basically asked the feds to set the laws to where those who choose not to join CANT negotiate for themselves....that is on you guys

that isnt the new persons issue....that is the unions

but you all want to hold it against them any way you can

you are afraid of losing the union if they are allowed to negotiate their own wages and benefits, and pissed off that they dont have to pay the dues for your union to do it for them

you HAVE to figure out a new plan....something to bring the workers back into the fold

1. reduce the fees....no way the annual fees should be so high (too many people getting rich)
2. make it appealing to join...right now it isnt....the benefits dont outweigh the costs
3. change your image....right now it is BAD....thuggery and intimidation rules the day

it is 2015, almost 2016.....time for unions to adapt or die

four years ago we distributed the $7.6 million award for uncompensated overtime to our members (the case was won in '09)
that covered under 1200 employees' underpayment for overtime unlawfully required to be worked
it averaged about $6.3K per employee
i believe our members received good value for their dues

 

[Thrilla]

I just did.

posting the names of employee's is
job harassment

telling them to shun their co-workers
creates a hostile work environment

these are against the law.

there I have posted them 2 times now. if you still dont' get it don't bother responding.

yes, harassment is illegal when it creates a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive..... every working adult in the country should know this already.... but folks will play dumb when they are stuck defending illegal behavior.

but save your breathe... you're talking to union sycophants who actually support workplace harassment, abuse, intimidation, or coercion when it benefits their union....

 

[justabubba]

I just did.

posting the names of employee's is
job harassment

then making employees wear name tags in public is harassment!
you make NO sense in your arguments

telling them to shun their co-workers
creates a hostile work environment

where is the hostility
you have presented nothing valid. again

these are against the law.

show us that the law prohibits posting employee names
show us that employees who do their jobs but decline to interact with other employees except as required by the job is found illegal
i get that you want it to be. but it is not
and you have failed to show us why these actions should be found in violation of the law
your are punching above your weight in this topic

there I have posted them 2 times now. if you still dont' get it don't bother responding.

i will respond
to again say your claims are unsupported by the facts

 

[HowardBThiname]

I think the conservatives in this thread are right...unions are to blame for America losing all those jobs.

That's shallow and simplistic, Frank.

There was a time when the unions were very important. They went on strike to force underground mine owners to implement safety measures before they'd go back in the hole. There was a time when workers (in some fields) were treated poorly and paid slave wages. Children worked. Too much.

But that time was a long time ago. After a while, union leaders decided to hold "the company" hostage over wages that exceeded market standards, and they stepped into the employer/employee relationship. Union leaders engaged in corruption and organized crime. They worked their way out of the American market. They were the reason companies closed their doors and other companies moved operations overseas.

Despite your flawed thinking that lawmakers can force businesses to stay in the US -- they can't. Look what happened with Hostess. They closed their doors and told the union to eff-off. When Hostess was bought out, the new owners made a strategic decision -- no unions. Now, Hostess is up and running again. Twinkies are flying off the shelves (probably into your mouth) and the people working at the plants are grateful for their jobs.

Unions have little use in our society today. Their heyday is over. Catch-up.

That has nothing to do with being a conservative or a liberal. Membership in unions is at an all-time low. Do you think only conservative workers dropped their memberships? Why aren't liberal workers champing at the bit to pick up those higher-wage jobs?

 

[JasperL]

calling these workers "scabs" is incorrect.

a scab is a worker who stays on the job during a strike, or one who is brought in to maintain production while a strike is on going.

as per the topic, no one should be surprised that unions resort to such intimidation as pointed out in the OP... there has never been a time when they did not intimate or harass non-union workers.... it's literally what they do, and have always done.

Just as a general observation, I don't have a problem if the union negotiates pay, benefits, working conditions, and more that are enjoyed by non-union members for those who pay for those valuable efforts to shun freeloaders.

It's no different to me than a person driving on our roads, using government services and being a tax cheat. I don't care if you wanted those services or not, you choose to live in the community, and so need to pay your share of the cost of the benefits you enjoy. Why is it different for a person working in a union work place? If they're really hostile to unions, go work somewhere else at non-union wages with non-union benefits.

 

[jet57]

Pay their fair share...

Translation: Contribute to Union coffers so they can continue to fund the Democratic Party while pretending to give a damn about the average worker.

No: work for the benefits they get.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That's shallow and simplistic, Frank.

There was a time when the unions were very important. They went on strike to force underground mine owners to implement safety measures before they'd go back in the hole. There was a time when workers (in some fields) were treated poorly and paid slave wages. Children worked. Too much.

But that time was a long time ago. After a while, union leaders decided to hold "the company" hostage over wages that exceeded market standards, and they stepped into the employer/employee relationship. Union leaders engaged in corruption and organized crime. They worked their way out of the American market. They were the reason companies closed their doors and other companies moved operations overseas.

Despite your flawed thinking that lawmakers can force businesses to stay in the US -- they can't. Look what happened with Hostess. They closed their doors and told the union to eff-off. When Hostess was bought out, the new owners made a strategic decision -- no unions. Now, Hostess is up and running again. Twinkies are flying off the shelves (probably into your mouth) and the people working at the plants are grateful for their jobs.

Unions have little use in our society today. Their heyday is over. Catch-up.

That has nothing to do with being a conservative or a liberal. Membership in unions is at an all-time low. Do you think only conservative workers dropped their memberships? Why aren't liberal workers champing at the bit to pick up those higher-wage jobs?

I stand by what I said.

 

[gdgyva]

four years ago we distributed the $7.6 million award for uncompensated overtime to our members (the case was won in '09)
that covered under 1200 employees' underpayment for overtime unlawfully required to be worked
it averaged about $6.3K per employee
i believe our members received good value for their dues

one case?

that is your basis for needing unions?

you better do better than that

and i think you know that better than i do....

the writing is on the wall....

 

[justabubba]

one case?

that is your basis for needing unions?

you better do better than that

and i think you know that better than i do....

the writing is on the wall....

you asked what kind of benefits the employees could expect to receive from their union dues. i gave you a first hand example
google will help you search for any array of examples you are seeking