UAW threatens to torpedo Ford
10-28-2009, 08:29 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in a union, but it had nothing to do with the graduate school and training that I had to go through in order to get my current job. In fact, I applied for my job, interviewed for it, and was hired all before I even joined the union. In my case, the union had nothing to do with my qualifications or my placement. Now that I'm in it (not by choice), I have to pay union dues every month, even though I don't want to.
BTW: I hate my union. It does more harm than good for me in my profession.
BTW: I hate my union. It does more harm than good for me in my profession.
10-28-2009, 09:12 PM
#52
NuncroStr8, you do realize that in admidst a downturn in the market with double digit unemployment (at least here in CA), unions all around the country are pushing for things like increased pension benefits, whereas the non union folk have to step up their game to hold onto their jobs. In every instance I could think of where you can compare union to non union, the non union environment tends to run an efficient, competitive company. If you live in CA, ask folks who work for PG&E where they literally have one floor union and one floor non union, or call hertz and enterprise and see who picks you up in a shirt and tie on time.
I remember hearing a great quote, fees for just about every public works service (like water, tolls, etc) have one up X%, has the service or value gone up the X%? I say this because a lot of government or public works type jobs are also union.
Oh, and Obama is trying to push unions onto companies, they're trying to take away secret ballots. I dunno what the hell the point is for that, your vote should be completely anonymous.
I remember hearing a great quote, fees for just about every public works service (like water, tolls, etc) have one up X%, has the service or value gone up the X%? I say this because a lot of government or public works type jobs are also union.
Oh, and Obama is trying to push unions onto companies, they're trying to take away secret ballots. I dunno what the hell the point is for that, your vote should be completely anonymous.
10-29-2009, 06:51 AM
#53
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the card thing comes up every few years. It wouldn't matter who is president, somebody tries to push it through Congress. It's always failed for a variety of reasons.
And even if it passes, it would only affect employers like Walmart who continually screw not just their empoyees but the communities where they are located. Despite constant claims about helping economies, Walmart ensures they employ the bulk of the workforce requiring some form of public assistance. All this while they consistently profit from sourcing merchanidise overseas.
If your employer already grants benefits and treats you right, you'd have no reason to unionize. And even if you did, it shouldn't be a problem because your employer already delivers what you want, right?
If you ask me, companies like Walmart prove unions are necessary and valuable. But that's just me.
As far as the whole BS claim about union shops being inefficient and non-competitive, do you have anything but anecdotal evidence? Because I've worked for both Fed Ex and UPS, and the UPS operation, union and all, was streamlined and better run. Fed Ex was spending a whole lot of time actively blocking unionization because they make more money without union contracts. It's not an issue of competitiveness, it's an issue of protection for the workers from the abuses of the empoyer. If the employer can't make money without abusing their employees, they aren't efficient or competitive.
If unions crippled companies, why is UPS still around? Why hasn't Fed Ex eaten them up long ago? Face reality. Unions are here for a reason, and while they aren't the perfect solution, there *is* no perfect solution as long as humans are invovled.
You are dreaming if you think unions are the root cause of economic issues. Not a single person has managed to explain how the Big Three US auto makers have survived this long despite unions supposedly killing them. Or how our nation's bridges and buildings are still getting built and our electricity and phone systems still work despite incompetent and lazy union members being responsible for virtually all of them. If you best argument is "some places don't have unions," try a little harder. That's not an argument. There is efficiency and the lack thereof in all companies, union or not.
If you really despise unions and wish they never existed, start working 10 hour days 7 days a week, refuse group health insurance, vacation time, overtime, sick days, and holidays. Don't take breaks ever, and eliminate any safety procedures or equipment that may be present. Don't tell me you'd have those things regardless, because you wouldn't. It was union members voting and lobbying Congress that ensured those things for ALL workers. Don't even bother disputing these points without doing the research yourself. I cannot believe how willfully ignorant some of you are.
And if you think we don't need unions anymore, then you must think we don't need vaccines for smallpox or polio anywmore, right? "Nobody gets those anymore, the world's changed." :/ The world hasn't changed, and some of you prove that point - "cut their wages and benefits, they are lazy and uneducated anyway, the stupid greedy workers." :/
And even if it passes, it would only affect employers like Walmart who continually screw not just their empoyees but the communities where they are located. Despite constant claims about helping economies, Walmart ensures they employ the bulk of the workforce requiring some form of public assistance. All this while they consistently profit from sourcing merchanidise overseas.
If your employer already grants benefits and treats you right, you'd have no reason to unionize. And even if you did, it shouldn't be a problem because your employer already delivers what you want, right?
If you ask me, companies like Walmart prove unions are necessary and valuable. But that's just me.
As far as the whole BS claim about union shops being inefficient and non-competitive, do you have anything but anecdotal evidence? Because I've worked for both Fed Ex and UPS, and the UPS operation, union and all, was streamlined and better run. Fed Ex was spending a whole lot of time actively blocking unionization because they make more money without union contracts. It's not an issue of competitiveness, it's an issue of protection for the workers from the abuses of the empoyer. If the employer can't make money without abusing their employees, they aren't efficient or competitive.
If unions crippled companies, why is UPS still around? Why hasn't Fed Ex eaten them up long ago? Face reality. Unions are here for a reason, and while they aren't the perfect solution, there *is* no perfect solution as long as humans are invovled.
You are dreaming if you think unions are the root cause of economic issues. Not a single person has managed to explain how the Big Three US auto makers have survived this long despite unions supposedly killing them. Or how our nation's bridges and buildings are still getting built and our electricity and phone systems still work despite incompetent and lazy union members being responsible for virtually all of them. If you best argument is "some places don't have unions," try a little harder. That's not an argument. There is efficiency and the lack thereof in all companies, union or not.
If you really despise unions and wish they never existed, start working 10 hour days 7 days a week, refuse group health insurance, vacation time, overtime, sick days, and holidays. Don't take breaks ever, and eliminate any safety procedures or equipment that may be present. Don't tell me you'd have those things regardless, because you wouldn't. It was union members voting and lobbying Congress that ensured those things for ALL workers. Don't even bother disputing these points without doing the research yourself. I cannot believe how willfully ignorant some of you are.
And if you think we don't need unions anymore, then you must think we don't need vaccines for smallpox or polio anywmore, right? "Nobody gets those anymore, the world's changed." :/ The world hasn't changed, and some of you prove that point - "cut their wages and benefits, they are lazy and uneducated anyway, the stupid greedy workers." :/
10-29-2009, 07:13 AM
#54
Anecdotal evidence? But what you just told us was anecdotal because you told us and we didn't see it. Yes, I have plenty of non-anecdotal evidence. Stuff I've seen with my own 2 eyes, but simply by telling you it becomes anecdotal.
Still trying to hide behind semantics or anything you can.
Oh and the big three didn't survive BECAUSE of the unions, they survived IN SPITE OF the unions. But I wouldn't really call it surviving, have you even read a newspaper in the past year?
Still trying to hide behind semantics or anything you can.
Oh and the big three didn't survive BECAUSE of the unions, they survived IN SPITE OF the unions. But I wouldn't really call it surviving, have you even read a newspaper in the past year?
10-29-2009, 07:27 AM
#55
Registered User
Like Wild says, your anecdotal carries no more or less weight than ours.
I didn't say I wish unions never existed. I pointed to their past value. But they should not exist now. And if smallpox or polio was 100% eradicated, just as young child labor is illegal everywhere in America today, then, sure, we wouldn't need those vaccines. Just as we don't need unions today.
Funny you mention Fed-X and UPS. UPS has gotten better in recent years (still has some f'ed up delivery rules) but who did we count on to deliver "when it absolutely positively has to be there on time?" Fed-X. Thanks for making our point for us. It doesn't matter how inefficient their internal appears. All that matters to customers in that industry are price and delivery. I don't care what their internal waste looks like compared to UPS.
I didn't say I wish unions never existed. I pointed to their past value. But they should not exist now. And if smallpox or polio was 100% eradicated, just as young child labor is illegal everywhere in America today, then, sure, we wouldn't need those vaccines. Just as we don't need unions today.
Funny you mention Fed-X and UPS. UPS has gotten better in recent years (still has some f'ed up delivery rules) but who did we count on to deliver "when it absolutely positively has to be there on time?" Fed-X. Thanks for making our point for us. It doesn't matter how inefficient their internal appears. All that matters to customers in that industry are price and delivery. I don't care what their internal waste looks like compared to UPS.
10-29-2009, 08:06 AM
#57
Originally Posted by Wildncrazy,Oct 29 2009, 10:13 AM
Anecdotal evidence? But what you just told us was anecdotal because you told us and we didn't see it. Yes, I have plenty of non-anecdotal evidence. Stuff I've seen with my own 2 eyes, but simply by telling you it becomes anecdotal.
10-29-2009, 09:48 AM
#58
Originally Posted by NuncoStr8,Oct 29 2009, 06:51 AM
the card thing comes up every few years. It wouldn't matter who is president, somebody tries to push it through Congress. It's always failed for a variety of reasons.
And even if it passes, it would only affect employers like Walmart who continually screw not just their empoyees but the communities where they are located. Despite constant claims about helping economies, Walmart ensures they employ the bulk of the workforce requiring some form of public assistance. All this while they consistently profit from sourcing merchanidise overseas.
If your employer already grants benefits and treats you right, you'd have no reason to unionize. And even if you did, it shouldn't be a problem because your employer already delivers what you want, right?
If you ask me, companies like Walmart prove unions are necessary and valuable. But that's just me.
As far as the whole BS claim about union shops being inefficient and non-competitive, do you have anything but anecdotal evidence? Because I've worked for both Fed Ex and UPS, and the UPS operation, union and all, was streamlined and better run. Fed Ex was spending a whole lot of time actively blocking unionization because they make more money without union contracts. It's not an issue of competitiveness, it's an issue of protection for the workers from the abuses of the empoyer. If the employer can't make money without abusing their employees, they aren't efficient or competitive.
If unions crippled companies, why is UPS still around? Why hasn't Fed Ex eaten them up long ago? Face reality. Unions are here for a reason, and while they aren't the perfect solution, there *is* no perfect solution as long as humans are invovled.
You are dreaming if you think unions are the root cause of economic issues. Not a single person has managed to explain how the Big Three US auto makers have survived this long despite unions supposedly killing them. Or how our nation's bridges and buildings are still getting built and our electricity and phone systems still work despite incompetent and lazy union members being responsible for virtually all of them. If you best argument is "some places don't have unions," try a little harder. That's not an argument. There is efficiency and the lack thereof in all companies, union or not.
If you really despise unions and wish they never existed, start working 10 hour days 7 days a week, refuse group health insurance, vacation time, overtime, sick days, and holidays. Don't take breaks ever, and eliminate any safety procedures or equipment that may be present. Don't tell me you'd have those things regardless, because you wouldn't. It was union members voting and lobbying Congress that ensured those things for ALL workers. Don't even bother disputing these points without doing the research yourself. I cannot believe how willfully ignorant some of you are.
And if you think we don't need unions anymore, then you must think we don't need vaccines for smallpox or polio anywmore, right? "Nobody gets those anymore, the world's changed." :/ The world hasn't changed, and some of you prove that point - "cut their wages and benefits, they are lazy and uneducated anyway, the stupid greedy workers." :/
And even if it passes, it would only affect employers like Walmart who continually screw not just their empoyees but the communities where they are located. Despite constant claims about helping economies, Walmart ensures they employ the bulk of the workforce requiring some form of public assistance. All this while they consistently profit from sourcing merchanidise overseas.
If your employer already grants benefits and treats you right, you'd have no reason to unionize. And even if you did, it shouldn't be a problem because your employer already delivers what you want, right?
If you ask me, companies like Walmart prove unions are necessary and valuable. But that's just me.
As far as the whole BS claim about union shops being inefficient and non-competitive, do you have anything but anecdotal evidence? Because I've worked for both Fed Ex and UPS, and the UPS operation, union and all, was streamlined and better run. Fed Ex was spending a whole lot of time actively blocking unionization because they make more money without union contracts. It's not an issue of competitiveness, it's an issue of protection for the workers from the abuses of the empoyer. If the employer can't make money without abusing their employees, they aren't efficient or competitive.
If unions crippled companies, why is UPS still around? Why hasn't Fed Ex eaten them up long ago? Face reality. Unions are here for a reason, and while they aren't the perfect solution, there *is* no perfect solution as long as humans are invovled.
You are dreaming if you think unions are the root cause of economic issues. Not a single person has managed to explain how the Big Three US auto makers have survived this long despite unions supposedly killing them. Or how our nation's bridges and buildings are still getting built and our electricity and phone systems still work despite incompetent and lazy union members being responsible for virtually all of them. If you best argument is "some places don't have unions," try a little harder. That's not an argument. There is efficiency and the lack thereof in all companies, union or not.
If you really despise unions and wish they never existed, start working 10 hour days 7 days a week, refuse group health insurance, vacation time, overtime, sick days, and holidays. Don't take breaks ever, and eliminate any safety procedures or equipment that may be present. Don't tell me you'd have those things regardless, because you wouldn't. It was union members voting and lobbying Congress that ensured those things for ALL workers. Don't even bother disputing these points without doing the research yourself. I cannot believe how willfully ignorant some of you are.
And if you think we don't need unions anymore, then you must think we don't need vaccines for smallpox or polio anywmore, right? "Nobody gets those anymore, the world's changed." :/ The world hasn't changed, and some of you prove that point - "cut their wages and benefits, they are lazy and uneducated anyway, the stupid greedy workers." :/
Walmart doesn't prove that unions are necessary, it proves that people need to get educated and work harder, or move to a town that's not dominated by walmart. You always have a choice.
10-29-2009, 09:54 AM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PedalFaster,Oct 29 2009, 07:46 AM
Look in the mirror, buddy -- your best argument is "some places have unions, and they still exist", as if continued existence is either unique or something that demonstrates exceptional strength and efficiency. Coincidentally, the three automakers with the heaviest reliance on union labor in North America are the three closest to collapse (well, technically, two have actually collapsed in the past year).
All of the things you listed are illegal. The government ensures that, not the unions. I don't dispute that the unions may have helped get those laws instituted, but that doesn't mean they're still necessary or beneficial. The U.S. arguably had to drop nuclear bombs on Japan to end World War 2. Does that mean that the U.S. should keep dropping nuclear bombs on Japan? Of course not -- that was a one-time need for drastic action, and since the world situation's changed, so has the appropriate remedy.
No one's denying that. It's you who's being willfully ignorant by implying that protections for workers' rights, and basic human rights for that matter, are in the same precarious state that they were 150 years ago.
Please quote who said that smallpox and polio vaccines are no longer necessary. If you can't, then admit that this red herring was a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that you're unable to respond to the criticisms others are raising.
The world's absolutely changed. The law protects basic human rights. The law does not, and should not, protect the right of a high school-educated worker to earn $50+ hours a week.
Anyway, your arguments are logically weak, you consistent ignore or misrepresent others' views, and your posts are tediously repetitive, so I'm going to block you and do my best to ignore this thread.
All of the things you listed are illegal. The government ensures that, not the unions. I don't dispute that the unions may have helped get those laws instituted, but that doesn't mean they're still necessary or beneficial. The U.S. arguably had to drop nuclear bombs on Japan to end World War 2. Does that mean that the U.S. should keep dropping nuclear bombs on Japan? Of course not -- that was a one-time need for drastic action, and since the world situation's changed, so has the appropriate remedy.
No one's denying that. It's you who's being willfully ignorant by implying that protections for workers' rights, and basic human rights for that matter, are in the same precarious state that they were 150 years ago.
Please quote who said that smallpox and polio vaccines are no longer necessary. If you can't, then admit that this red herring was a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that you're unable to respond to the criticisms others are raising.
The world's absolutely changed. The law protects basic human rights. The law does not, and should not, protect the right of a high school-educated worker to earn $50+ hours a week.
Anyway, your arguments are logically weak, you consistent ignore or misrepresent others' views, and your posts are tediously repetitive, so I'm going to block you and do my best to ignore this thread.
10-29-2009, 10:12 AM
#60
From whence came this kid? Is there a "straw man argument" magnet hidden somewhere in www.s2ki.com or something?