i believe the unions were meant to
Posted By: support the hard workers on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Yeah, I'll talk about unions s/m - gourdpainter
maybe part of the downfall is because of the lazy ones who rode on the backs of the hard workers.
that is the only part of a union that i could say i'm against. if you are not pulling your weight, enough... ya know?
regarding these MTs who cherry pick, i wish these companies would call them on it, give them notice and get rid of them... there are plenty of good MTs who would gladly take their place.
actually i have seen norma rae.. lol... it has been YEARS go though...
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Unions
I am in total agreement with your synopsis of unions. Case in point: I work for one of the largest HMO's in the country as a MT, and our jobs are on the line. We belong to a 'union' (won't say which one), and without notice, the facility decided to use VR and guess what? The majority of our MT's are either jobless or working for dang near nothing. The union stood with management and let them take our jobs and then turned around and told us that 'there was nothing they could do about it'. Our country has gone to h#ll in a handbasket since deregulation (Reagan years). They deregulated every single job such as Gourdpainter pointed out, trucking. Look at the airlines and any other large company you can think of. The American worker is an and has been an endangered species and it saddens me that on the Repub and Dem sides that we are stuck in the middle and ultimatrly pay the price for their greed and neglect when it comes to their constituents. WE suffer - not them. They don't have to worry about what to do when they decide to retire, they don't have to worry about how to give their children a good education and certainly don't have to worry about how their families are fed. There was a time when unions did their best to protect the American worker but looking at what I personally deal with at this point in time - they are weak, useless and take your money and you can believe you get little or no representation when or if its needed. JMO.
those bad ol' unions
I love how the unions are always the secret cause of the problems. If demanding good pay and fair treatment can utterly destroy the economy, then maybe our economy is too unbalanced to be worth saving.
You're right, though. It's a lot easier to create a cheap job where workers are unprotected and uninsured, than it is to create a good job. And so the foreign car companies came flocking to the southern US to build their factories, and the US taxpayer, as always, picked up the cost of the uninsured. And now the business is bottoming out, and there's no safety net for the workers, because everybody was too busy trying to cut costs and complaining about those evil union workers up north.
What the unions have done lately
is negotiate bloated hourly pay rates and pension plans. The car manufacturers, of course, agreed. Couple that with executive pay and bonuses, the effect has been to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
I believe it was a triad, the unions, executives, and government meddling that has killed the auto industry.
Let's not leave out the government's part in this - long before the bailouts, government mandates and standards for manufacturing cars other than what people wish to buy. And since the government could not ban SUVs and trucks (apparently what many consumer wanted and still want) it attacks them in a different way.
We've all read claims that SUVs are 'responsible for highway deaths.' Why? Because the SUV driver walked away and the family of four driving a roller skate did not? Look for gas prices to go back up to four bucks and stay there. That will be to force us to drive tiny death trap cars. People were actually buying them when gas prices were high, but sales dropped when the per-gallon price got back down to two dollars.
Maybe there will also be some kind of tax based on vehicle size or weight, either on purchase, or to scoop more of us into the governmentm maw, a federal surtax when we reregister our current cars.
Unions, etc.
1. I agree that I kind of mixed up two points here. I was sort of confused about you saying I needed to educate myself on percentages, though. And I was being kind enough not to mention that we might not need such a large part of our budget going to the DOD had Mr. Bush not gotten us into at least one, if not two unwinnable wars with the loss of over 4,000 young American lives, on the basis of, shall we say, fibbing, or making up "facts on the ground" that were totally false. But hey, Mission Accomplished!
2. I don't think a transcription union would work - especially right now. Too many people are worried about keeping their jobs to complain about how our pay rate has actually decreased over the years rather than increased. 30 years ago I was earning 5 cents per line for a 50-character line, straight typing, correcting mistakes with white-out (so happy when correcting selectrics arrived) and managing 100 dollars a day. That amount actually meant something back then. Nowadays people are under so much stress, not knowing when the "other shoe is going to fall" that they are happy to have scraps, as long as it means they have a job.
3. I'm not exactly sure what happened with the UAW, other than being put under incredible pressure to make concession after concession, all while being made to look like the bad guys who were the cause of all the trouble. For myself, I can't imagine how difficult it would be to work on the line day after day, as was the case for some of my relatives. My husband's union is a very strong union. Every year he has gotten a raise in pay, he has vacation pay, health insurance, and a pension plan. I don't really think I provided you with a "cache of union slogans", but I am very thankful for the Ironworkers Union.
I think probably the end of unions is not far away. Union-busting seems to be a favorite activity of certain people. All I can tell you is that for my family, my husband was able to earn a living wage in his very dangerous occupation.
As I alluded to previously, in our great country we are entitled to our opinions. I thank God for that.
I swear this is all because of the unions. They will
nm
want to talk about unions?
the places i've seen around our area who have unions are pathetic. i've seen unions protect employees who come to work intoxicated, who don't come to work at all, who PLAY CARDS on work time, do what they want because their "union will protect" them. so if you are suggesting the union is American... that's pretty pathetic. if they were actually protect HARD WORKING AMERICANS, then i'd be fine with it.
you wanna talk about "jabs" at obama? i guess "a bunch of losers" would not be a jab?
I have seen unions do good and bad
Did anyone take note of what happened with the last grocery strikes in California. The employees certainly did not end up better off after months of striking for a corrupt union. I have also seen them do very good things. They do keep wages high--sometimes, perhaps too high. Checkers at your grocery stores used to have to memorize codes and prices and everything else. Now, it is so simple that you and I can do it with no training whatsoever, thus, the self checkout, so maybe, just maybe, $20/hour with really good benefits is more than that job is worth at this point. I think that unions are good and bad, but the sanctity of the secret ballot needs to be preserved. Of course, this is just my opinion and some of you out there might disagree 200%.
Deregulation of unions in US
Gourdie: I definitely agree, and I find it such a shame that the workers and consumers in this country cannot see what has happened. All this talk about OSHA, etc. has no meaning anymore because the backbone of these government offices have no backbone and don't give a gnat's tweeter how the American workers have and continue to suffer.
Profitable? Doing well? No unions?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/germ-o25.shtml
European Auto Industry in Crisis
http://www.emf-fem.org/Press/Press-release-archive/2007/EU-Automotive-Restructuring-Forum
EU Automotive Restructuring Forum - talks about working with trade unions
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/ashuster/nonviolence/2008/09/romanian_autoworkers_strike_against_rockbottom_wages.html
Romanian Autoworkers Strike Against Rock-Bottom Wages
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/german-autoworkers-threaten-strike/
German Autoworkers Threaten Strike
http://uk.oneworld.net/contact/company/view/18
Canadian Autoworkers Union Directory
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=89621
UK: Car workers' Union Frustrated by Low Manufacturers Output
http://www.autonews24h.com/Auto-Industry/Peugeot-Citroen/741.html
UK Peugeot Workers Vote Against Strike to Protest Lay-Offs
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=573
Swedish Auto Workers Campaign
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2002/10/feature/it0210303f.htm
Crisis at Fiat Worsens - name countless unions
Yet another reason we need unions...nm
x
This, along with the millions to the unions
help pay for Mr. O's presidency being bought. These 2 for sure, reckon how much more?
unions redux
The question that always comes to mind, when I hear how lazy and shiftless all those UAW workers are, is--who made all those millions and millions of cars on the road, all these years? It certainly couldn't be the union workers, right? They wouldn't lift a finger to make a car, they were too busy fanning themselves with hundred dollar bills. So who made the cars?
The austrian-school piece you quote is a good example of the thing that is most wrong with our country: Turning worker against worker, while the CEOs profit. Boiled down to its essentials, the article says: ''Workers shouldn't have any power to organize to defend their rights. Their pay should be determined by the free market--a market that is not so much free, as it is controlled by the corporate interests.''
That is the ideological foundation: Enrich the rich, at the expense of the worker. The pratical method: Keep workers from organizing so that their interests don't have to be considered. And the antiunion rhetoric that we've all heard, all our lives, is the propaganda technique that makes it seem reasonable.
I don't doubt that the foreign car companies who have based operations here in the non-unionized southern US have good production numbers. They have received massive government intervention in their own countries, enabling them to create better production methods (rather than simply enriching the CEOs and stockholders, as our domestic companies seem intent on). The fact that, in their own countries, they don't have to pay for insurance for their workers, because these benefits are provided by the government, helps them stay lean. Our own method, throwing workers to the wolves, also helps socialize costs, but with a more chilling, terrifying effect.
Anyway. My point: If you are against workers organizing to defend their rights, then you are on the side of the wealthy who have organized to defend their wealth. There is not a middle ground.
Well....civil unions would have
to be something we would do on a country wide basis. I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them. I meant this as a country wide thing. If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing. I guess I wasn't specific enough.
As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it. I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know.
Bringing up from below about taxes/unions
At first we were told the outsourcing was to cut labor costs. Only after this campaign rhetoric took hold did the issue of taxes come up. Now I ask you, if the reason for outsourcing is taxes, what the heck? Didn't Bush CUT taxes.
It seems that American people have lost the reasoning side of their collective brains. When I quit working a few months ago I was making LESS than I made in the 80s. How is that possible? The cost of medical care has not gone down. The cost of medical insurance has not gone down. I posted some time ago about a local hospital that laid off their most experienced nurses, not a few of them, ALL of them, and hired new graduate nurses to replace them at lesser wages. What was that about? They got away with it though. Anything to increase the bottom line profit.
This is true in every industry. They like to blame labor for everything. Well, how the heck can you buy a $2+ loaf of bread and $5 gallon of milk on minimum wage, ya know? Take gasoline for example. Sure it has gone down the last days but is it back where it was when oil was what? $86 a barrel or whatever? No and it never will be.
So that car you drive.........how much do you think of the price tag is labor?
These things are what really aggravates me. People just can't seem to use reasoning power any more. I'll give you an example: After my husband lost his job in the CF fiasco, he drove for awhile for a friend who owns a trucking company. I went with him on a trip. He picked up a load of beef in Boonesville, AR, hauled it to Chicago, no problem. Then they sent him somewhere in Ohio to pick up a load of vinegar to take to Florida. Got to Ohio and I forget the reason but he couldn't pick up the vinegar. Then he was sent (empty) to Logan (?), Kentucky where he picked up 40,000 pounds of chocolate covered doughnuts which he delivered to Phoenix. In Phoenix they told him that most of that load would be routed back to Atlanta. Now what kind of sense does that make? Taxes the problem? I would say poor management is a bigger problem than taxes OR labor.
I'm sorry about your dad's experience. People used to do things like that. I recall my late father-in-law, worked for the fire department in Fort Worth and he said during the depression they did the same thing, worked less so the ones with less seniority could keep a job. They all suffered but they suffered together and somehow they all made it as did your parents.
I am just horrified at the apparent digress of intelligence in this country. It seems people believe anything the news media or anyone else tells them. Seems they have totally lost the ability to reason and God forbid that anyone should think of anyone other than themself.
All that said, feel free to go ahead and believe that companies are outsourcing jobs because of labor costs or taxes. The unionized workers, under Reagan, started taking wage concessions, that is taking a DECREASE in pay to keep jobs. How did that work? Don't believe I've heard of any of the victims of outsourcing even being offered a pay cut to keep the jobs in this country. Certainly not the Rheem plant in Fort Smith that the other day laid off the last 600 workers. They sent most of their production to Mexico a few years ago. Fort Smith they say is dying because of outsourcing. Their reason? They say, it's "labor costs." Well, then, how is it that people can't afford to pay their bills with all the excessive wages they're supposedly receiving. Obviously the next in vogue EXCUSE will be that taxes are lower in other countries. B.S.!!!!!!!
Unions don't work anymore.
Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.
Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.
The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?
I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less. They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.
No, unions DO put them in a financial hole.
nm
The unions are killing companies, though. That is
nm
Have a question for the labor unions....
especially the UAW....how do you like him now that he has thrown you under the "let the automakers go bankrupt" bus. Be careful what you vote for.....
I think they should go bankrupt. Unions didn't cause it -
well, i guess the word has not gotten to the unions then...
at end of article they quoted one union leader as saying his members "would not tolerate" this. It was an article dated yesterday. But, it would not surprise me that he would exempt unions, which makes absolutely NO sense, because they are the best and most costly benefits to be had. So, probably so, it will be on the backs of folks like us. My question is...what are they going to do after they break our backs? Who is going to pay for all their cr*p then?? Why, whatever am I thinking? Soon it will be only the "poor" which will include all of us, and the government and those who kiss*d the government as* who prosper...hmmm. Kinda like Venezuela...kinda like Nazi Germany...hmmm.
Yeah, I'll talk about unions s/m
Two husbands who were union workers. One IBEW, one Teamster. BOTH said there were workers who didn't carry their share of the work load...not much different than MTs who cherry pick for instance.
#1 IBEW husband said at the time or Reganomics, when Ronald Reagan, himself a card-carrying member of the actor's union, said he would break the unions, it would be the downfall of the American workers.. Regan succeeded in breaking the backs of the unions. When union workers lost the ability to bargain, they had to start taking wage concessions......and guess what? Union wages went down, so did non-union wages follow suit. When union workers got better working conditions, better wages and better benefits, so did non-union workers.
#2 Teamster husband is a radical retired Teamster. While he also complained that there were lazy workers who rode on the backs of the hard-workers, he also said that the union does not support such and more times than not the union would uphold the firing of such a person. He has a Teamster retirement that is the envy of most people and he has retiree health care benefits even though we pay about $700 a month for that. While he was working, his union dues were around $35 a month and that covered our insurance. Teamster retirees today will not enjoy those benefits.
Do some research on the history of unions. Might not hurt to watch the movie Norma Rae as well.
You already posted this question. Civil unions are
*
What I meant was....
why can we not protect the unborn children first? Are they not as deserving as homeless, poor, etc.? That was my point. I do not see, nor do I ever expect to see, liberals exhorting us to take care of unborn children as a part of taking care of the least among us. I have seen Conservatives exhort to take care of the least among us, including unborn children. Conservatives just want to put a limit on it, and regulate it a little more closely (as far as welfare, etc.). I don't have a problem with that either. And I give privately to Christian organizations that DO take care of the least among us. It does not have to go through the government to be effective. I guess that is where we differ.
What I meant was...
He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing. At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.
I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said. I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush. Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura. I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.
I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary. I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far. I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America. I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.
I meant
In the last paragraph I meant to write posting "false" information, not "fall".
Not quite sure if it is a pub or a dem who meant DNC....lol nm
nm
Sorry that was meant for OP nm
x
I think you meant that some
or maybe even many Obama supporters are educated. Just like McCain supporters.
Meant I wonder......
.
Her's what I meant
Not true meant that I'm not a rabid Republican (I'm a conservative). That's why the RINOS need to get the heck out of the RNC. They've ruined it. Also, they're frauds.
yes, that is what I meant
I have no idea why I typed Otis Small?? Good night GP
Not what I meant.
What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court. For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.
I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division.
Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy. Thanks. 
I meant...
As O's father is Muslim and O's mother Christian, they had to decide how they were going to raise O.
That what I meant.
I am roman catholic.
What? Oh, you must have MEANT to say
nm
I only meant where did it come from?
WHY the OP posted it
but aren't you classy
obviously he meant that he wants
to win over the moderates and fight the terrorists with his strategy.
I believe what you meant to say was
the hard working class of people that this entire country was founded on is going by the wayside, instead being replaced by an invasion of another country and their people to add to the already overwhelmed small population of people that work to pay for those who have spent generation after generation mooching off of the working class.
If not being lazy makes me self righteous, then so be it.
That is not what I meant.
Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs. I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks.
Meant what I put
knew such smart people here (I) could just get ......
still going at it, thanks for the snippy response.
I meant to say..
We already have laws in place that work to protect people from being harmed or killed.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew. Do you know Noam Chomsky? How about David Horowitz's parents? How about the Rosenbergs? Shall I go on. Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!?
I meant... NOW shoe...nm
But I know you'll stay because you need us to validate yourself. You're not at your best unless you are in your leftist/lib basher mode, eh. Keep it up, and people like you will expose the right brotherhood for what it's worth.
That isn't what he meant but there is no use debating you.
Maybe logical thought escapes you.
Wow, did I say Liar. I really meant sm
 deluded liar. Yes, that's much better.
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.
Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
I never meant to infer that
W should NOT have gone to VT. If that is how you read it, then you misread or I mistyped. Of course he should have been there; it is just that there was SO much publicity about this tragedy and it does not appear (to me) that there is much of that for the American soldiers in Iraq; nothing on a national level.
I also never said that conservatives did not care about the war. What I meant was that in a country where only 50% of eligible voters turn out it is not unusual that so many Americans are disconnected from this war. I remember hearing people talk about WWII and seeing movies (not valid verification but nonetheless) and it seemed that the entire country was aligned behind **the cause.** I don't see that now. I bet you the family farm that I could go down to one of the city high schools or middle schools and ask a group of teenagers what they know about this war, what do they think we should or should not do and I feel certain I would get pretty much blank stares. That is what I mean about Americans not caring...maybe that is not the correct term. Most Americans are not engaged and don't feel a connection or much of an allegiance to **the cause.** No one sacrifices anything for this war but then that is one definition of secularism I have heard **Secularism is a life without sacrifice.
You see staying in Iraq as creating some kind of democracy where the people will live a better life. I don't. I see that the longer we stay, the more people die, both Americans and Iraqis. Altho I did not agree with this war, or any war for that matter, the possibility that Iraq could have been changed for the better did probably exist 4 years ago, but not now. I really believe our being there will make no difference, aside from more death, than us not being there. It is not cut and run to me. It is cut your losses and in my opinion that would be loss of life.
As far as Clinton and Somalia; I don't know much about the details of that situation. He was concerned about bin Laden; a lot of people were for a long time. I don't think this country would have supported a war in the middle east before 9/11 happened and that played a part as well. There is quite enough blame to go around for not foreseeing (sp) 9/11.
Knew what you meant
Isn't it awful when your own relatives treat you like dirt. My sister is mormon and she actually thinks I'm on the same level with manson, dahmer, hitler, etc because I'm not mormon (we both grew up going to methodist services with 12 years of sunday school). Inlaws treated us like garbage cos we didn't go to their church when we lived near them. I am a deeply spiritual person but I am not a Christian and I count myself blessed not to be in their crowd.
Nope, exactly how I meant it
Pretty self explanatory.
You Meant to Say McCain, Right?
Obviously you've confused the 2 candidates. It's poor Senator McCain who can't think/talk at the same time.
Meant to add "sm"
xoxoxoxo
|
