question on unions
- Thread starter sadiehawkins
- Start date
I’m a former member of the IBEW, so I fully support private unions. I think where most the disdain for unions comes from is the public sector. As I’ve mentioned before, in my personal experience, govt employees for the most part are fvcking garbage. There is no incentive to excel at their jobs and they are protected by a union that cares for nothing but to preserve its existence.
So teachers, police firemen and ambulance drivers are all a piece of sh1t. They have no incentive to succeed. Got it. Remember that when you need help. do you send your kids to public school what kind of teachers would they have at minimum wage.
Last edited:
Care to share what exactly makes you an expert? And I’m not wrong, you just don’t like my answer.
No pics ahead...
Unions have been a net positive in my life. The stability of my Mother's public teaching job allowed her to get her master's, retire early and open a business with my Dad.
I was a Teamster for a few years with a local natural foods distribution company, and we enjoyed better benefits and hire pay than every other warehouse in the company. We were also the most productive. I still can't figure out why they were trying so hard to break the union in my final year.
My wife is a member of SEIU at UIHC. Up until 2016 she was very happy with the yearly COL raises and benefit structure. Unfortunately the Statehouse chose to target them, so we'll see how that works out. I have my doubts that the nurses are going to all of a sudden start being rewarded on a case by case basis.
Unions have been a net positive in my life. The stability of my Mother's public teaching job allowed her to get her master's, retire early and open a business with my Dad.
I was a Teamster for a few years with a local natural foods distribution company, and we enjoyed better benefits and hire pay than every other warehouse in the company. We were also the most productive. I still can't figure out why they were trying so hard to break the union in my final year.
My wife is a member of SEIU at UIHC. Up until 2016 she was very happy with the yearly COL raises and benefit structure. Unfortunately the Statehouse chose to target them, so we'll see how that works out. I have my doubts that the nurses are going to all of a sudden start being rewarded on a case by case basis.
There is no difference in public or private membership dick head. Never said I was a expert like you.
Not a expert but 45 yrs as a member of BMWE and as a non union manager. What I have seen as a union member and manager is they drive to be safer and be more productive than a non union worker.
What's wrong with unions? Would you want some third party muscling into your business and forcing you to engage in collective bargaining over all terms and conditions of employment? It would be one thing if it was simply the employees you're dealing with. But a union organization has their own employees whose salaries are paid from employee union dues to "represent" YOUR employees and make your life miserable as the business owner.
Other problems:
Unions can visit the homes of employees; the employer cannot.
Unions can make all sorts of outrageous promises regarding the benefits of union membership, employers can't promise employees anything as an inducement to reject the union.
Union laws allow employees to describe the workplace and its managers using very nasty and abusive language, and the employer has no recourse.
Unionization creates enormous costs that obviously cannot become company profits or increased wages and benefits for employees.
In the end, the employment agreement is supposed to be between the employer and the employee. You should be recognized and rewarded for your individual skills, knowledge, abilities and efforts. Unions don't allow that. Everyone gets paid the same; seniority is the only factor that can be individually rewarded.
Simply put, unions are parasitic organizations that take advantage of employers AND the employees to feather their own beds.
Other problems:
Unions can visit the homes of employees; the employer cannot.
Unions can make all sorts of outrageous promises regarding the benefits of union membership, employers can't promise employees anything as an inducement to reject the union.
Union laws allow employees to describe the workplace and its managers using very nasty and abusive language, and the employer has no recourse.
Unionization creates enormous costs that obviously cannot become company profits or increased wages and benefits for employees.
In the end, the employment agreement is supposed to be between the employer and the employee. You should be recognized and rewarded for your individual skills, knowledge, abilities and efforts. Unions don't allow that. Everyone gets paid the same; seniority is the only factor that can be individually rewarded.
Simply put, unions are parasitic organizations that take advantage of employers AND the employees to feather their own beds.
Last edited:
That's about the longest most uninformed post on union membership I have ever read
union can visit homes and employers can't what the fvck is that
your second point on promises Its not a promise it's called negotiations and a contract
point 3. I have know idea what this is
Rebuttal to all points as usual TRad is clueless.
You might want to educate yourself there, sport.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/unioncampaigns.aspx
A recent decision of the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") serves as a convenient reminder that employers must exercise restraint when dealing with employees who are engaged in activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").
In this case, the Board determined that an employer violated the NLRA by disciplining a union steward for using profanity toward a supervisor during a disciplinary meeting. (Alcoa Inc., N.L.R.B. No. 141, 8/29/08)
An Alcoa employee (exercising his Weingarten rights) asked his union steward, Mark Hewitt, to represent him during a disciplinary meeting with management. During that meeting, Hewitt pointed at a supervisor, used a four-letter expletive to describe the supervisor, and expressed his view that the disciplinary action against the employee was unfair. Hewitt was promptly suspended for insubordination and abusive and offensive behavior toward the supervisor. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, alleging that Alcoa had violated Hewitt's right to engage in union activity protected by the NLRA.
The Board agreed that Alcoa had violated the NLRA by suspending Hewitt, because Hewitt was acting as a union representative at the time of the incident. In determining whether an employee's conduct (such as Hewitt's outburst) is protected by the NLRA, the Board considers: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee's conduct; and (4) whether the conduct was in any way provoked by an employer's unfair labor practice. Although Hewitt's outburst was not provoked by an unfair labor practice, the Board found that the other factors weighed in Hewitt's favor. Specifically, the Board noted that Hewitt's use of profanity occurred in the course of discharging his representative duties.
An employer normally would be free to discipline or discharge an employee for this or similar conduct. The presence of a union in the workplace changes things, especially where otherwise unacceptable conduct occurs in the course of protected activity. As this case indicates, the NLRA cloaks union representatives with protections that can trump normal disciplinary rules. Conduct that may normally warrant disciplinary action, such as the use of profanity, may be protected if occurs in the course of a union representative's discharge of his or her representative duties. There are, of course, limits to what is protected (e.g., Hewitt would not be protected if he had punched the supervisor), but the limits are poorly defined and highly fact sensitive.
Unions are well aware of the NLRA's protections, and they typically ensure that employees who are selected to serve as union representatives also know what they can "get away with." Employers who don't know and follow the law are at a disadvantage. This case should remind employers to resist the temptation to rush to discipline an employee acting as a union representative for what would be legitimate reasons in other circumstances.
If you have any questions regarding this, or any other legal issue, please feel free to contact a member of Greenebaum's Labor and Employment Practice Group.
https://www.bgdlegal.com/blog/it-s-...r-using-profanity----isn-t-it-not-necessarily
In this case, the Board determined that an employer violated the NLRA by disciplining a union steward for using profanity toward a supervisor during a disciplinary meeting. (Alcoa Inc., N.L.R.B. No. 141, 8/29/08)
An Alcoa employee (exercising his Weingarten rights) asked his union steward, Mark Hewitt, to represent him during a disciplinary meeting with management. During that meeting, Hewitt pointed at a supervisor, used a four-letter expletive to describe the supervisor, and expressed his view that the disciplinary action against the employee was unfair. Hewitt was promptly suspended for insubordination and abusive and offensive behavior toward the supervisor. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, alleging that Alcoa had violated Hewitt's right to engage in union activity protected by the NLRA.
The Board agreed that Alcoa had violated the NLRA by suspending Hewitt, because Hewitt was acting as a union representative at the time of the incident. In determining whether an employee's conduct (such as Hewitt's outburst) is protected by the NLRA, the Board considers: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee's conduct; and (4) whether the conduct was in any way provoked by an employer's unfair labor practice. Although Hewitt's outburst was not provoked by an unfair labor practice, the Board found that the other factors weighed in Hewitt's favor. Specifically, the Board noted that Hewitt's use of profanity occurred in the course of discharging his representative duties.
An employer normally would be free to discipline or discharge an employee for this or similar conduct. The presence of a union in the workplace changes things, especially where otherwise unacceptable conduct occurs in the course of protected activity. As this case indicates, the NLRA cloaks union representatives with protections that can trump normal disciplinary rules. Conduct that may normally warrant disciplinary action, such as the use of profanity, may be protected if occurs in the course of a union representative's discharge of his or her representative duties. There are, of course, limits to what is protected (e.g., Hewitt would not be protected if he had punched the supervisor), but the limits are poorly defined and highly fact sensitive.
Unions are well aware of the NLRA's protections, and they typically ensure that employees who are selected to serve as union representatives also know what they can "get away with." Employers who don't know and follow the law are at a disadvantage. This case should remind employers to resist the temptation to rush to discipline an employee acting as a union representative for what would be legitimate reasons in other circumstances.
If you have any questions regarding this, or any other legal issue, please feel free to contact a member of Greenebaum's Labor and Employment Practice Group.
https://www.bgdlegal.com/blog/it-s-...r-using-profanity----isn-t-it-not-necessarily
https://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/winter-2003/union-trenches-safer-than-non-union/
Maybe you should be informed a little more being a union member is about going home with your lunch pail and not in a body bag.
Maybe you should be informed a little more being a union member is about going home with your lunch pail and not in a body bag.
Your generalistic view of unions is so skewed is laughable.
Good grief. Did you even read that article?
The adoption of the new standard resulted in a 50 percent reduction in trench-related fatalities in union and non-union companies, alike. In the five years before the new standard, the fatality rate was 13.5 per million workers per year, but that dropped to 6.8 per million per year for the five years after adoption. The decline was consistent across all construction companies, regardless of size. In contrast, during the same period, the decline in all other causes of workplace fatalities was only 27 percent.
The researchers concluded, "This study provides evidence that a targeted inspection program along with revision of a previously ambiguous consensus standard is effective in reducing fatal workplace injury."
Because they were investigating the impact of OSHA standards on fatalities, the researchers drew no conclusions from the divergence in fatalities at union and non-union firms.
The researchers could not conclude that the presence of a union had any relationship with reduced fatality rates.
And a major criticism of OSHA is that workplaces were progressively becoming safer before OSHA even existed, and it's difficult to measure whether gains are due to OSHA regulations or would have been made anyway.
Have you ever gone through a unionization drive? Have you ever sat at the negotiating table across from the union? Have you ever had to deal with union grievances and union stewards?
I have. They're leeches, nothing more.
Those are some of our most important professions, but the money allocated to them doesn’t need to be “infinity”. Many governments are underneath bad deals due to aggressive unions and poor management.
And yes.... many people in those professions (especially teachers) have no incentive to succeed. The very best teachers are the ones that talk about it, because they’re annoyed by it.
That’s not to say unions are inherently bad or even the lessor of 2 evils, but it’s frustrating when people suggest those teachers, fire fighters, police and/or veterans walk on water and just throw money at them. That attitude is exactly why any good/reasonable person could be anti-union.
Trad are corporations ever leeches, guilty of abusing power dynamics?
One big misunderstanding about unions that most people are guilty of is the idea that unions are some sort of benevolent organization, like a charity or a non-profit.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. A union is a business. BIG business. They're in the business of representing employees. Their business model is to grow by unionizing workplaces and thus, acquiring more dues-paying members.
Even worse, they take their members' money and donate it to politicians who support the union business model (overwhelmingly democrats).
Nothing could be farther from the truth. A union is a business. BIG business. They're in the business of representing employees. Their business model is to grow by unionizing workplaces and thus, acquiring more dues-paying members.
Even worse, they take their members' money and donate it to politicians who support the union business model (overwhelmingly democrats).
Bullshit. Completely false. No point in entertaining further discussion with you.
Corporations provide products and services that people want to buy. If people don't become customers, then the corporation goes out of business.
Unions on the other hand only have to get 50 percent plus 1 of their "customers" at a workplace to want to "buy" their services. If you're in the minority at your workplace, you're required to purchase those services whether you want them or not (in states that don't have right-to-work laws).
Even in right-to-work states where you're not required to join the union or pay dues, you're still stuck with the union contract and you can't be individually rewarded for your efforts unless the union contract allows for merit pay (the vast majority of union contracts do not allow for that). Everything is about the "collective" and not the individual.
Last edited:
Trad I’m sure you’ve had bad experiences with unions. Fine. But every post of yours could just as well be describing the ugly side of corporations.
Unions are just like anything else, there’s good and bad. Anything summarily as negative as you’re positioning it seems quite subjective (which is fine) but at least acknowledge your bias.
Unions are just like anything else, there’s good and bad. Anything summarily as negative as you’re positioning it seems quite subjective (which is fine) but at least acknowledge your bias.
Trad is a complete dumbfvck on this subject. Don’t waste your time.
Corporations often provide products and services that are net detrimental, and are unbelievably exploitive along the way.
Trad be a corporatist, fine, but god you’re extreme in your worship. Balance it out, bro.
Yes, unions are businesses, just like the employers are. There are in fact unions whose employees have unionized against the union!
The difference is the way they gain customers.... through a hostile takeover of the workplace. Again, if they can just get 50 percent plus 1 of the employees to vote for the union, they've captured ALL the workers and force them ALL to be customers.
Other types of businesses can't do that.
Hostile takeover? Lofl, Jesus you’re a fvcking idiot. To unionize the employees have to vote. If that’s “hostile” then I believe you might be a fvcking commie.
I’m part of a private trade union, the wife works in CPS for the state and is part of a public union. There are major differences between the two.
Let's take a look at that "democratic" vote process, shall we?
Unions are secretly campaigning all the time. There's a process called a "Card Check" in which employees sign a card stating that they want the union to represent them. If the union can get 30 percent of the bargaining unit to sign a card, then they can petition the NLRB to force an election.
The NLRB does not tell the employer that a petition has been filed until the election is authorized. Then the union shows up outside the workplace with signs and literature announcing the vote. That's when employers learn what's going on. (In our case, the NLRB faxed the notice to us after the union had already started creating a scene on the sidewalk outside the business).
The election happens swiftly, sometimes within as little as 8 days, but it's usually more like 23 days.
The union has been campaigning for months. The employer now has only a matter of weeks to campaign against the union.
When these "quickie" elections rules were put into place during the Obama years, the win rate for unions jumped about 5-8 percentage points.
Now days, more than two-thirds of union elections result in a union win, largely thanks to Obama's ambush election rules.
I said for the most part. And I don’t have kids so I don’t give a shit about teachers or their union. And certainly there are police and firefighters that are pieces of shit. Just because they have a “noble” job doesn’t make them so.
You really think that's a fair process?
If it was fair, you'd expect unions to win about half of the time.
They're winning more than two-thirds of the elections.
That alone screams that the process is not fair.
How do you know you wouldn't be just as well-off or better in a non-unionized workplace?
On average, employees tend to do better in unionized vs. non-unionized workplaces, but if you look at high-performing employees, they tend to do worse.
So, if you're an average or below-average worker, the union is likely to be good for you, but if you're a high-achiever, you'd probably be better off in a non-union workplace where your individual contributions can be recognized and rewarded.
Unions are neither "good" nor "bad". The devil is in the details
Should teachers be allowed collective bargaining? Yes. Should they be allowed to strike? No.
Should workers at a company be allowed to unionize? Yes. Should union membership be mandatory for all employees? No.
Even if you're allowed to opt out of union membership (which is only in states with right-to-work laws), you're still stuck with a collective contract that does not recognize or reward individual merit or achievement.
My first job out of law school was not union. It was a $8000 raise to work four days a week starting my current job. Raises at my first job were rare. They hadn't had one for three years. Current job had annual raises for the first ten years. Better insurance, retirement, time off. Union is better than the non union job by miles.
That's anecdotal and doesn't prove you wouldn't do better with a different non-unionized employer.
In my company, nurses who receive high performance evaluation scores get bigger annual raises than nurses who receive average or below-average scores. You won't ever see that in a union contract.
When you join a union it’s not just about you, it’s a brother/sisterhood. It’s about the greater good and having a voice in numbers. Trad, we know you hate unions, but to flat out deny any merit to them shows how biased and clueless you are.
Sigh, really? Perhaps people are able to see the benefits of forming a union and it’s better than the alternative.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
