Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hayden512

Massive protests in my hometown

Recommended Posts

At the moment there are 6000 people outside the capital in Lansing, MI protesting the "right to work " vote. There expecting 10,000. I had class down there this morning and traffic is nuts.

 

This was taken yesterday.

 

ACDC22A2-C0CC-466D-95C1-697B4D1BDC57-147-0000000489488C61.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol emphasis on the word yesterday.

 

oh lmao. why did you post the pic from yesterday? Do you plan on posting a pic of today for comparison?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A right to work? What does that even mean?

 

To tell you the truth I'm a little confused about it. They're voting for it today but it has to do with unions. I'll see if I can find more on it. Supposedly obamas in Michigan to talk about how he doesn't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From wiki...

 

 

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

 

Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States. Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft?Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop having right to work laws in effect for government employees.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

 

I don't know about other places. But here, once a union is established in a business, they can and do make you become a member of the union, paying dues, etc. when you start a job with the company. There is not a choice to opt out of the union, but if you don't want to join for religious reasons, you still have to pay union dues, but they can be donated to your church. (a very slippery slope).

 

I think the jist of this law is that people are being refused jobs because they aren't members of the union. Here, if you are wanting to work on a big project like our oil upgrader expansion, you must be a member of the union before you can apply. This is for workers like carpenters, electricians, etc. They have to go to the union office and join before they can even apply to work on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bravo. Off of that I don't mind the law being passed. In my line of work its weird for me to say this but I don't think unions are really necessary now a days. They did great things in the past but now a days there just proving to be a problem. I know lots of people that were fired over a terrible worker because they weren't in the union and the bad worker was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In BC we are expecting a change of Gov't in the new year and with that we are expecting the union voting method of using a secret ballot to disappear. It will be replaced with the old non secret ballot allowing for high pressure tactics from the union before and after any vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From wiki...

 

 

A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements' date=' or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring.

 

Right-to-work laws exist in twenty-three U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States. Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft?Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop having right to work laws in effect for government employees.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

 

 

I don't know about other places. But here, once a union is established in a business, they can and do make you become a member of the union, paying dues, etc. when you start a job with the company. There is not a choice to opt out of the union, but if you don't want to join for religious reasons, you still have to pay union dues, but they can be donated to your church. (a very slippery slope).

 

I think the jist of this law is that people are being refused jobs because they aren't members of the union. Here, if you are wanting to work on a big project like our oil upgrader expansion, you must be a member of the union before you can apply. This is for workers like carpenters, electricians, etc. They have to go to the union office and join before they can even apply to work on the site.[/quote']

 

What it turns into in the end is employees who reap all the benefits of unions bargaining power, but who won't side with the union when there is a labor problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right ClassicBoxer. That's the other side of it.

 

Personally, I come from a management side and have not been a member of a union at any time. Although my wife is a member of one of the biggest unions in our province. I can sit back and see both sides.

 

I worked very hard to keep the union out of one place I used to work at. It was a grocery warehouse, paid above minimum, had really good benefits, etc. The union that was trying to get in has a history of getting in places and starting fights with management that have ended up with two other wholesalers being shut down and moving their operations to another province.

 

So, they hold their recruiting meeting, which is allowed by law, and everyone must attend. (again, mandated by law) I went to the meeting and the first thing the union rep said was "don't worry, if they shut down we will get you all good severance packages. I got up and left.

 

That is only one union, and the worst one in the province. My wife works for the nurses' union. Great pay, great benefits, her seniority moved with her when we changed cities last year... can't argue with that.

 

Good and bad... unions are pretty much just a fact of life, being that Sask. was run by a left wing very socialist government for many many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're right ClassicBoxer. That's the other side of it.

 

Personally' date=' I come from a management side and have not been a member of a union at any time. Although my wife is a member of one of the biggest unions in our province. I can sit back and see both sides.

 

I worked very hard to keep the union out of one place I used to work at. It was a grocery warehouse, paid above minimum, had really good benefits, etc. The union that was trying to get in has a history of getting in places and starting fights with management that have ended up with two other wholesalers being shut down and moving their operations to another province.

 

So, they hold their recruiting meeting, which is allowed by law, and everyone must attend. (again, mandated by law) I went to the meeting and the first thing the union rep said was "don't worry, if they shut down we will get you all good severance packages. I got up and left.

 

That is only one union, and the worst one in the province. My wife works for the nurses' union. Great pay, great benefits, her seniority moved with her when we changed cities last year... can't argue with that.

 

Good and bad... unions are pretty much just a fact of life, being that Sask. was run by a left wing very socialist government for many many years.[/quote']

 

You are also right, good and bad. Fortumately, I have benefitted from unions since I was 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of you think Unions have too much power??? In Argentina last week I think they basically had the country at a standstill as the entire public transportation system was down. I personally think they're given too much at times. I worked previously in an Industrial Relations environment and some of the claims made were quite simply ludicrous....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any of you think Unions have too much power??? In Argentina last week I think they basically had the country at a standstill as the entire public transportation system was down. I personally think they're given too much at times. I worked previously in an Industrial Relations environment and some of the claims made were quite simply ludicrous....

 

Not in America. The unions in America are very weak compared to most of the world that has unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not in America. The unions in America are very weak compared to most of the world that has unions.

 

Not too familiar with the American union landscape. There were some pretty nasty union led strikes over the past years here. Teachers are right now staying away from classes to get their salaries increased by 13% They were offered 8.5%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks bravo. Off of that I don't mind the law being passed. In my line of work its weird for me to say this but I don't think unions are really necessary now a days. They did great things in the past but now a days there just proving to be a problem. I know lots of people that were fired over a terrible worker because they weren't in the union and the bad worker was.

 

Unions are a joke and in my business they're corrupt and steal our hard earned money. The broadcasting unions are in bed with the major broadcasting companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions these days cause more harm than good. Most of the best companies to work for now in the US are non unionized companies like Nissan, Toyota, etc. Unions have run the cost of wages through the roof. In turn the costs of manufacturing have gone up causing a stall in company growth, increased costs for consumers at the register, and even to the point of driving some employers out of business.

Unions need to go, and if I was a person put in charge of helping straighten out ANY company that is overly controlled by a union, my first thing would be a newsletter stating.

 

"Starting __/__/____ this company will no longer be negotiating with nor will it be controlled by any union function. Workers may remain in the union if they so choose, but upon unions initiating negotiations, they will not be entertained. If a walk out or strike is intiated, and you fail to perform your work related duties you will be considered a no show for work and your employment will be terminated immediately. Furthermore, union employees initiating a strike or walk out remaining on company grounds to harrass new workers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any persons protesting or striking outside of company property will be permitted to do so as a freedom for peaceful demonstration is a right not to be withheld from anyone. If the demonstration begins to turn non peaceful law enforcement will be brought in. Anyone harrassed, physically threatened, or physically assaulted will be emplored to seek prosecution, and a company lawyer will be provided to them to seek compensation both against and from any individualy acting violently in any way.

 

As of __/__/____ all employees wages will be re-examined and all employee functions will be re-examined. If it is determined that you are not performing your duties properly, you will begin getting written up for performance violations, after 3 performance counselings you have not began to perform your duties to the standard required by your employer, your employment will be terminated.

 

Not all union required jobs will be required after the restructuring of this company. Some jobs may also see a reduction in salary to bring the workers pay in line with the duties performed. You may be terminated at any time you do not perform to the standards of the company or violate company policy. If this is unacceptible to you, then you should immediately begin searching for employment elsewhere. Unions will no longer hold any clout within this organization, and union workers will no longer be afforded special priviledge on company grounds. You may choose to keep working, or you may choose to follow your union to work elsewhere.

 

Those of you whom remain at this company will be paid a fair wage for your work performed, you will have a fair and reasonable benefits package, and retirement plan. You will be given a safe and sanitary working condition and will become a valued member of this company that will be rewarded for your hard work and loyalty.

 

I emplore each and every one of you to remain at this company and through hard work, respect for one another, and dedication, this company can grow and succede like never before, and we will all reap the benefits of that growth.

 

Thank you for your time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unions these days cause more harm than good. Most of the best companies to work for now in the US are non unionized companies like Nissan' date=' Toyota, etc. Unions have run the cost of wages through the roof. In turn the costs of manufacturing have gone up causing a stall in company growth, increased costs for consumers at the register, and even to the point of driving some employers out of business.

Unions need to go, and if I was a person put in charge of helping straighten out ANY company that is overly controlled by a union, my first thing would be a newsletter stating.

 

"Starting __/__/____ this company will no longer be negotiating with nor will it be controlled by any union function. Workers may remain in the union if they so choose, but upon unions initiating negotiations, they will not be entertained. If a walk out or strike is intiated, and you fail to perform your work related duties you will be considered a no show for work and your employment will be terminated immediately. Furthermore, union employees initiating a strike or walk out remaining on company grounds to harrass new workers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any persons protesting or striking outside of company property will be permitted to do so as a freedom for peaceful demonstration is a right not to be withheld from anyone. If the demonstration begins to turn non peaceful law enforcement will be brought in. Anyone harrassed, physically threatened, or physically assaulted will be emplored to seek prosecution, and a company lawyer will be provided to them to seek compensation both against and from any individualy acting violently in any way.

 

As of __/__/____ all employees wages will be re-examined and all employee functions will be re-examined. If it is determined that you are not performing your duties properly, you will begin getting written up for performance violations, after 3 performance counselings you have not began to perform your duties to the standard required by your employer, your employment will be terminated.

 

Not all union required jobs will be required after the restructuring of this company. Some jobs may also see a reduction in salary to bring the workers pay in line with the duties performed. You may be terminated at any time you do not perform to the standards of the company or violate company policy. If this is unacceptible to you, then you should immediately begin searching for employment elsewhere. Unions will no longer hold any clout within this organization, and union workers will no longer be afforded special priviledge on company grounds. You may choose to keep working, or you may choose to follow your union to work elsewhere.

 

Those of you whom remain at this company will be paid a fair wage for your work performed, you will have a fair and reasonable benefits package, and retirement plan. You will be given a safe and sanitary working condition and will become a valued member of this company that will be rewarded for your hard work and loyalty.

 

I emplore each and every one of you to remain at this company and through hard work, respect for one another, and dedication, this company can grow and succede like never before, and we will all reap the benefits of that growth.

 

Thank you for your time."[/quote']

 

Good luck getting any board of directors of any big corporation to agree to fair terms without needing their hand forced to do so. Many people villify unions for being uncooperative but it takes two sides to create a cluster ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unions these days cause more harm than good. Most of the best companies to work for now in the US are non unionized companies like Nissan' date=' Toyota, etc. Unions have run the cost of wages through the roof. In turn the costs of manufacturing have gone up causing a stall in company growth, increased costs for consumers at the register, and even to the point of driving some employers out of business.

Unions need to go, and if I was a person put in charge of helping straighten out ANY company that is overly controlled by a union, my first thing would be a newsletter stating.

 

"Starting __/__/____ this company will no longer be negotiating with nor will it be controlled by any union function. Workers may remain in the union if they so choose, but upon unions initiating negotiations, they will not be entertained. If a walk out or strike is intiated, and you fail to perform your work related duties you will be considered a no show for work and your employment will be terminated immediately. Furthermore, union employees initiating a strike or walk out remaining on company grounds to harrass new workers will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Any persons protesting or striking outside of company property will be permitted to do so as a freedom for peaceful demonstration is a right not to be withheld from anyone. If the demonstration begins to turn non peaceful law enforcement will be brought in. Anyone harrassed, physically threatened, or physically assaulted will be emplored to seek prosecution, and a company lawyer will be provided to them to seek compensation both against and from any individualy acting violently in any way.

 

As of __/__/____ all employees wages will be re-examined and all employee functions will be re-examined. If it is determined that you are not performing your duties properly, you will begin getting written up for performance violations, after 3 performance counselings you have not began to perform your duties to the standard required by your employer, your employment will be terminated.

 

Not all union required jobs will be required after the restructuring of this company. Some jobs may also see a reduction in salary to bring the workers pay in line with the duties performed. You may be terminated at any time you do not perform to the standards of the company or violate company policy. If this is unacceptible to you, then you should immediately begin searching for employment elsewhere. Unions will no longer hold any clout within this organization, and union workers will no longer be afforded special priviledge on company grounds. You may choose to keep working, or you may choose to follow your union to work elsewhere.

 

Those of you whom remain at this company will be paid a fair wage for your work performed, you will have a fair and reasonable benefits package, and retirement plan. You will be given a safe and sanitary working condition and will become a valued member of this company that will be rewarded for your hard work and loyalty.

 

I emplore each and every one of you to remain at this company and through hard work, respect for one another, and dedication, this company can grow and succede like never before, and we will all reap the benefits of that growth.

 

Thank you for your time."[/quote']

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just say what I said before

 

We needed them when kids were working 60 hour weeks in the coal mines. We don't need them anymore.

 

All the protections American workers need can be easily mandated federally (just like the minimum wage)

It's super easy.

Unions prey on workers by dangling a carrot of awesome benefits in front of their faces. They suck up the union dues, demand these awesome benefits from employers who can't afford both an army of good employees and these awesome benefits, so they are forced to hire LESS people than they wanted to, and make cheaper crap products that hardly compete in the global marketplace, and then we need to bail them out later or watch them fail and everyone gets the pink slip.

 

1 week paid vacation, a living minimum wage, 3 sick days a year, family leave act, an offered voluntary enrollment health plan, an offered voluntary enrollment retirement plan.

All required by Fed statute, who needs a union now?

Once those rules are in place, an open marketplace will naturally pressure employers to offer better pay and benefits if they really want to hire the best workers to make the best products which in turn net the best profits.

A union then is unecessary.

That last paragraph is just for example, not that those would be the actual benefits once the federal reg is established. maybe you'd get 7 days paid vacation, 5 sick days, and other such changes. Point is, the real protections American workers require so that they are not completely abused by employers can be easily mandated by the feds.

 

Write rules.

Employer breaks rules, they get fined.

Employers want awesome employees who increase productivity and profits, they will offer better pay and benefits than the federal minimum.

I could get minimum wage at my work, but they dont want some idiot ignorant **** up, so they pay me a few dollars more an hour than the Oregon minimum wage because I have the eduaction and experience required to do my job efficiently and accurately, and thus they save money not trying to fix errors and retrain idiots every few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just say what I said before

 

 

That last paragraph is just for example' date=' not that those would be the actual benefits once the federal reg is established. maybe you'd get 7 days paid vacation, 5 sick days, and other such changes. Point is, the real protections American workers require so that they are not completely abused by employers can be easily mandated by the feds.

 

Write rules.

Employer breaks rules, they get fined.

Employers want awesome employees who increase productivity and profits, they will offer better pay and benefits than the federal minimum.

I could get minimum wage at my work, but they dont want some idiot ignorant **** up, so they pay me a few dollars more an hour than the Oregon minimum wage because I have the eduaction and experience required to do my job efficiently and accurately, and thus they save money not trying to fix errors and retrain idiots every few months.[/quote']

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just say what I said before

 

 

That last paragraph is just for example' date=' not that those would be the actual benefits once the federal reg is established. maybe you'd get 7 days paid vacation, 5 sick days, and other such changes. Point is, the real protections American workers require so that they are not completely abused by employers can be easily mandated by the feds.

 

Write rules.

Employer breaks rules, they get fined.

Employers want awesome employees who increase productivity and profits, they will offer better pay and benefits than the federal minimum.

I could get minimum wage at my work, but they dont want some idiot ignorant **** up, so they pay me a few dollars more an hour than the Oregon minimum wage because I have the eduaction and experience required to do my job efficiently and accurately, and thus they save money not trying to fix errors and retrain idiots every few months.[/quote']

 

I'll miss your common sense bud, take care!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I be forced to join a Union?

 

That is the principled question. You can all bog it down with fat and what ifs. But if you are principled in your decision making there's no need to go farther than that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I be forced to join a Union?

 

That is the principled question. You can all bog it down with fat and what ifs. But if you are principled in your decision making there's no need to go farther than that question.

 

No, you shouldn't but that's a 2 way street. Not everyone lives in a bustling city economy and if it was as easy as levying fines for unfair treatment of employees, it would've already been done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wirerat' date=' does America not have labour laws governing collective bargaining?[/quote']

 

Yes... They do. It appears that some are confusing liberty and economic freedom with opposing workers rights and supporting corporate oligarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perfect answer.

 

So, I don't quite understand the conflicts here. The "right to work" means what? That employees are free to choose to not be in a union? If a union has contracted with a shop to make it "closed" so that a prerequisite of working in the shop is that you must pay union dues, then where is the conflict? Both parties, the union and the shop have voluntarily entered into an agreement... and if you want to be part of that shop, you voluntarily agree to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Where is the "gun"? If the state steps in and bans this agreement is this not the "gun" and not the agreement between the union and the shop?!?

 

If you really believed in the free market and weren't just spouting typical free market rhetoric, you would allow unions to bargain for whatever the market would bear, including fair share provisions, agency fees, or even a closed shop. Firms in a free market can make contracts between each other where one is an exclusive supplier. So a firm that sells labor, say a staffing company, temp agency, sub-contractor, etc and be the exclusive provider for another firm. Yet if a group of workers get together and manage to sign the exact same kind of contract guaranteeing that their association is the exclusive provider of labor for a company, the courts will strike them down and people like you label them as "thugs."

 

I just don't get it. You lot of "free market fighters" and self proclaimed libertarians are actually arguing against free market ideology and siding with corporate powers and government intervention against workers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I be forced to join a Union?

 

That is the principled question. You can all bog it down with fat and what ifs. But if you are principled in your decision making there's no need to go farther than that question.

 

Do you think the poor people in Bangladesh who burned to death working in a Walmart sweat shop wish they had union protection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think the poor people in Bangladesh who burned to death working in a Walmart sweat shop wish they had union protection?

 

It's not really about that. He feels that unions force themselves on the market through labor laws and unfairly skew the market in their favor. As an economics major, he should know better than to make that claim. As a libertarian, he should know better than to side with big business and government intervention in favor of big business. I suggest he stays in school for another 8 years because he clearly still has a lot to learn. CBAs are voluntary contracts. Point blank. No 2 ways about it. Which is a core tenant of libertarian ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I be forced to join a Union?

 

.

 

 

Simple strajght forward question. Simple straight forward answer. No.

 

 

 

Did everyone see the video of those nice' date=' non-violent union protesters sucker punching the conservative guy?[/quote']

 

Yes. Luckily Fox news are all over it like a rash...:)

 

I guess the fact that the unions are left wing makes it ok though. Its like a get out of jail free card..:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did everyone see the video of those nice' date=' non-violent union protesters sucker punching the conservative guy?[/quote']

 

You mean after the "conservative" pushed him to the ground... First?

 

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/as-it-turns-out-fox-contributor-steven-crowder-assaulted-a-union-member/

 

Lol, at your attempts to villify union members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple strajght forward question. Simple straight forward answer. No.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Luckily Fox news are all over it like a rash...:)

 

I guess the fact that the unions are left wing makes it ok though. Its like a get out of jail free card..:rolleyes:

 

It doesn't surprise me that you bought into Faux News' editing of the actual event hook, line, and sinker. In case you didn't see it in my response to SVT, here ya go.

 

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/as-it-turns-out-fox-contributor-steven-crowder-assaulted-a-union-member/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not really about that. He feels that unions force themselves on the market through labor laws and unfairly skew the market in their favor. As an economics major' date=' he should know better than to make that claim. As a libertarian, he should know better than to side with big business and government intervention in favor of big business. I suggest he stays in school for another 8 years because he clearly still has a lot to learn. CBAs are voluntary contracts. Point blank. No 2 ways about it. Which is a core tenant of libertarian ideology.[/quote']

Although you may be right, you're overlooking that a libertarion would still say what I have said.

A libertarian wouldn't mess with voluntary contracts.

However, they'd also live in a world that didnt have unions.

I'm not saying I want to control voluntary contracts between employers and unions. I'm saying I'd have a market without Unions at all.

Let the free market regulate labor in itself. Like I said, if an employer wants efficient, quality work that produces quality products which boost profits - they will pay good wages and provide decent benefits to attract quality employees.

The basic protections the American worker needs to not be back in the coal mines so to speak can be easily established through federal statute, and do not require any union bargaining whatsoever.

 

I am not a libertarian in the Ron Paul sense, but I do lean libertarian on many subjects.

I don't want to control contracts, in my ideal situation, there would simply be no unions to bargain with at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although you may be right' date=' you're overlooking that a libertarion would still say what I have said.

A libertarion wouldn't interfere with voluntary contracts.

However, they'd also live in a world that didnt have unions.

I'm not saying I want to control voluntary contracts between employers and unions. I'm saying I'd have a market without Unions at all.

Let the free market regulate labor in itself. Like I said, if an employer wants efficient, quality work that produces quality products which boost profits - they will pay good wages and provide decent benefits.

The basic protections the American worker needs to not be back in the coal mines so to speak can be easily established through federal statute, and do not require any union bargaining whatsoever.

 

I am not a libertarian in the Ron Paul sense, but I do lean libertarian on many subjects.

I don't want to control contracts, in my ideal situation, there would simply be no unions to bargain with at all.[/quote']

 

"If an employer wants efficient, quality work that produces quality products which boost profits" is a false statement. The way to boost profits is to reduce production costs, which means paying your workers the bare minimum they can, whether it's American workers or foreign workers. Almost every product that can be produced in a poor country and still be delivered to America at a low enough price to make it cost efficient is produced in a poor country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean after the "conservative" pushed him to the ground... First?

 

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/as-it-turns-out-fox-contributor-steven-crowder-assaulted-a-union-member/

 

Lol' date=' at your attempts to villify union members.[/quote']

 

So Crowder tries to help others protect THEIR property by preventing union members from destroying this tent and hurting people in it by pushing these union members off the tent...the union guy falls and gets up swinging.....yea seems justified :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If an employer wants efficient' date=' quality work that produces quality products which boost profits" is a false statement. The way to boost profits is to reduce production costs, which means paying your workers the bare minimum they can, whether it's American workers or foreign workers. Almost every product that can be produced in a poor country and still be delivered to America at a low enough price to make it cost efficient is produced in a poor country.[/quote']

Reducing production costs isn't everything, and it only really works for unskilled product manufacture.

 

No one is using sweat shops to make cars, computer boards, planes, trains, or medical equipment. Why? because you don't want ****** cheap labor manufacturing things that peoples lives depend on.

 

Also, maybe if we didnt have an entitlement minded, union driven, manufacturing base in America, American workers would actually try to compete for jobs in an open global market.

I understand what you're saying - but it's part of our problem.

We pay American auto workers a TON of money and benefits, and they still make an inferior product that hardly competes in the US market, let alone foreign markets.

But we cant pay them less because of the unions, we cant take away benefits either. So we just watch as GM, Ford, and Chrysler nearly died and we bail them out.

They die because their workers, despite getting better pay than their foreign competitors, still make an inferior product.

 

So stop paying them gold class, when they are only giving you bronze class products.

maybe we should pay them what a South Korean makes, and give them the same benefits, and see if they can compete to make a better product.

You and I both know the Americans would just quit, or strike, or anything else other than step their game up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reducing production costs isn't everything' date=' and it only really works for unskilled product manufacture.

 

No one is using sweat shops to make cars, computer boards, planes, trains, or medical equipment. Why? because you don't want ****** cheap labor manufacturing things that peoples lives depend on.

 

Also, maybe if we didnt have an entitlement minded, union driven, manufacturing base in America, American workers would actually try to compete for jobs in an open global market.

I understand what you're saying - but it's part of our problem.

We pay American auto workers a TON of money and benefits, and they still make an inferior product that hardly competes in the US market, let alone foreign markets.

But we cant pay them less because of the unions, we cant take away benefits either. So we just watch as GM, Ford, and Chrysler nearly died and we bail them out.

They die because their workers, despite getting better pay than their foreign competitors, still make an inferior product.

 

So stop paying them gold class, when they are only giving you bronze class products.

maybe we should pay them what a South Korean makes, and give them the same benefits, and see if they can compete to make a better product.

You and I both know the Americans would just quit, or strike, or anything else other than step their game up.[/quote']

 

Cars are expensive to ship overseas. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, are built in America for the American market. Computers are made in China. Explain why American auto companies paid their executives millions of dollars in salaries AND BONUSES when they were doing such a poor job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean after the "conservative" pushed him to the ground... First?

 

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/as-it-turns-out-fox-contributor-steven-crowder-assaulted-a-union-member/

 

Lol' date=' at your attempts to villify union members.[/quote']

 

In all the jostling and pushing, one guy falls to the ground ( the camera doesn't show who actually pushes him ) He gets up and immediately begins swinging full force. Nice to see that you condone such behaviour Kevin

 

.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you bought into Faux News' editing of the actual event hook' date=' line, and sinker. In case you didn't see it in my response to SVT, here ya go.

 

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/as-it-turns-out-fox-contributor-steven-crowder-assaulted-a-union-member/[/quote']

 

 

Kevin. Take the ' oh its faux News, it must be lies ' blinkers off. Its old hat and cliche at best.

 

It is said that an open mind is an indicator towards intelligence. Lol. You must be as dumb as **** dude,:rolleyes::P

 

 

Oh, your response is the exact same footage that Fox News broadcast. It takes a special kind of genius to use Fox News footage to try to disprove....well......Fox News footage. Lmao.

 

 

Dumb***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have a similar thing here where the government has outlawed 'work agreements' which allow companies to fire 'casual' employees on short notice. which is bullh**** as I think if u hire a casual it's exactly that, no strings. they need to empower public sector to do the same because our taxes pay their wages and they basically can't be fired once permanent even with huge breaches of rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So' date=' I don't quite understand the conflicts here. The "right to work" means what? That employees are free to choose to not be in a union? If a union has contracted with a shop to make it "closed" so that a prerequisite of working in the shop is that you must pay union dues, then where is the conflict? Both parties, the union and the shop have voluntarily entered into an agreement... and if you want to be part of that shop, you voluntarily agree to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Where is the "gun"? If the state steps in and bans this agreement is this not the "gun" and not the agreement between the union and the shop?!?

 

If you really believed in the free market and weren't just spouting typical free market rhetoric, you would allow unions to bargain for whatever the market would bear, including fair share provisions, agency fees, or even a closed shop. Firms in a free market can make contracts between each other where one is an exclusive supplier. So a firm that sells labor, say a staffing company, temp agency, sub-contractor, etc and be the exclusive provider for another firm. Yet if a group of workers get together and manage to sign the exact same kind of contract guaranteeing that their association is the exclusive provider of labor for a company, the courts will strike them down and people like you label them as "thugs."

 

I just don't get it. You lot of "free market fighters" and self proclaimed libertarians are actually arguing against free market ideology and siding with corporate powers and government intervention against workers...[/quote']

 

I simply don't agree with this, in your second paragraph you like a union to an independant contractor providing labour to a business, when that is not at all what a union does. The Union does not have a contract with a business it has a contract with it's employees. The company itself , not the union is solely responsible for hiring and firing and promoting any staff, the union simply negotiates on behalf of it's members as a collective unit, or fights on behalf of a member if they are fired/reprimanded etc.. It is labour law that states who is to be included within a union at a work place, and once the union is established a person is forced to join that union, even against his will if they are hired into a position that may be covered by that union.

 

For private business where there may be more competition in the market place, then that may be ok, the employee can search around and find a similar non union position... but what if the job has no competition? Say teachers or hospital/nursing staff.

 

I simply believe that workers should have the choice to join or opt out of a union. Most strong union supporters and union bosses do not agree with this as it simply weakens the union and it's negotiating power.

 

May I ask if you also support an non secret ballot in Union voting? In that anyone in your union would be able to see who voted for and against a union? or for or against a current negotiation contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So' date=' I don't quite understand the conflicts here. The "right to work" means what? That employees are free to choose to not be in a union? If a union has contracted with a shop to make it "closed" so that a prerequisite of working in the shop is that you must pay union dues, then where is the conflict? Both parties, the union and the shop have voluntarily entered into an agreement... and if you want to be part of that shop, you voluntarily agree to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Where is the "gun"? If the state steps in and bans this agreement is this not the "gun" and not the agreement between the union and the shop?!?

 

If you really believed in the free market and weren't just spouting typical free market rhetoric, you would allow unions to bargain for whatever the market would bear, including fair share provisions, agency fees, or even a closed shop. Firms in a free market can make contracts between each other where one is an exclusive supplier. So a firm that sells labor, say a staffing company, temp agency, sub-contractor, etc and be the exclusive provider for another firm. Yet if a group of workers get together and manage to sign the exact same kind of contract guaranteeing that their association is the exclusive provider of labor for a company, the courts will strike them down and people like you label them as "thugs."

 

I just don't get it. You lot of "free market fighters" and self proclaimed libertarians are actually arguing against free market ideology and siding with corporate powers and government intervention against workers...[/quote']

 

I'm all for private unions. But the Unions we see today are in power because of the state. Companies today are forced to allow Union thugs on their property and promote their Union. What is voluntary about that? If my companies upper management for example says dont join a union we dont agree with that then they get in trouble. Again, that doesnt seem like a voluntary contract to me.

 

Luckily Nevada is a right to work state. And luckily my company has not gone Union yet. Although they are pushing like crazy to get in, and its getting real fragile right now. Dana White has even commented on this Union. He says the same group spends money in places like New York to keep MMA illegal.

 

These are not voluntary contracts Kevbo. Its backed by the fed for the fed for what? MONEY. And its never been about me, because if it was about me, every state would be right to work. Its about money and power. Nothing more. Or force for us An Caps! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the 80's Reagan convinced America that the poor people and the unions were bringing down America' date=' and it hasn't changed since.[/quote']

 

Waiting for Superman is a documentary loaded with lefties explaining how the Teachers Union is destroying education. I would say that would be in fact "bringing down America". What say you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for private unions. But the Unions we see today are in power because of the state. Companies today are forced to allow Union thugs on their property and promote their Union. What is voluntary about that? If my companies upper management for example says dont join a union we dont agree with that then they get in trouble. Again' date=' that doesnt seem like a voluntary contract to me.

 

Luckily Nevada is a right to work state. And luckily my company has not gone Union yet. Although they are pushing like crazy to get in, and its getting real fragile right now. Dana White has even commented on this Union. He says the same group spends money in places like New York to keep MMA illegal.

 

These are not voluntary contracts Kevbo. Its backed by the fed for the fed for what? MONEY. And its never been about me, because if it was about me, every state would be right to work. Its about money and power. Nothing more. Or force for us An Caps! :D[/quote']

 

It's really a scam by big business to make the unions the bad guys, with the promise that management will be fair to the workers without a union, which has been proven to be false over the last 130 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really a scam by big business to make the unions the bad guys' date=' with the promise that management will be fair to the workers without a union, which has been proven to be false over the last 130 years.[/quote']

 

I got no problems with my current contract with my business, guess im being scammed :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...