Jump to content
Paulding.com

Unions Hypocrisy


Recommended Posts

I guess that most people believe unions were once good and are now antiquated. I know the hay market massacre was about getting an eight hour work day. We have unions to thank for a forty hour week. Pay for overtime hours. So very much more to thank them for. One thing I have learned about unions is that they have bargained for a reason, and the minute a contractor can stick it to the unions they will. I am a Union plumber and I bet you my training is better than any non union worker. As far as trying to exempt themselves from something they have pushed, give me one group of people who hasn't at some point thought the rules should apply to another and not themselves.

I'm curious as to how your training is better than a plumber not in a union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why are you always "baiting" folks? And dont act like you have no idea what I am talking about!   Its crap like this that is turning your "posters" away.   You are a pathetic pathetic person......

There is no excuse for what the Unions are trying to do in Los Angeles. Blatant hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. The Unions used to provide a service. Without them, many of the labor laws that are

Not true if you are great at your job.       Do you think you should be able to quit a job at any time for any reason? If so, why can't the employer do the same?

Posted Images

I'm curious as to how your training is better than a plumber not in a union.

 

 

I don't know where some union members get their training, E Z, but that is not the issue. If you are not a member of an organization, you don't have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

 

You can be a representative of the Georgia public, and take a camera, and a microphone, to record what a union is up to with our Georgia law makers, and our uniformed protectors, and servers will get you kicked out of the hotel.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that most people believe unions were once good and are now antiquated. I know the hay market massacre was about getting an eight hour work day. We have unions to thank for a forty hour week. Pay for overtime hours. So very much more to thank them for. One thing I have learned about unions is that they have bargained for a reason, and the minute a contractor can stick it to the unions they will. I am a Union plumber and I bet you my training is better than any non union worker. As far as trying to exempt themselves from something they have pushed, give me one group of people who hasn't at some point thought the rules should apply to another and not themselves.

 

There are a lot of things that happen that don't seem to conform with normal, everyday common sense when, in reality, they aren't that far fetched and may provide a way to get from point A to point B.

 

The LA city council, in passing their minimum wage law, rejected business interests that were proposing that programs like health benefits, pensions, on-site child care or even educational benefits (tuition or student load payoffs) might be packaged in such a way as to count 'toward' meeting the minimum wage law. Seeing the wide variety of 'asks' and how all that would filter into the deal and potentially dilute the impact of the $15 minimum wage, the city council rejected that and made it a clean requirement.

 

There is still interest, on the part of workers and businesses for businesses to provide benefits of various sorts to their workers. One way to help pay for those improved benefits ... which may (and often does) amount to one-quarter to one-third of many workers compensation packages in the real world ... would be through a union which negotiates a verifies a specific deal with a specific company.

 

The unions saw an opportunity that would benefit them and benefit the businesses by institutionalizing the negotiations over wages between workers and owners.

 

Owners have traditionally rejected the idea of this kind of negotiation because it takes away their strongest strategy when it comes to dealing with large numbers of employees - it takes away the strategy of divide and conquer.

 

The hypocrisy here is that of some forces in business that look at labor and deny them the right to be represented by the best agent they can get. One might say that the right to counsel in the constitution, if read broadly, includes the right to have someone represent you in commerce. Certainly there is a long legal history that allow one person to act as the agent for other people and not just in the courts.

 

This is a right that most people take for granted in every field including employment - just ask an actor if they'll appear at your birthday party and they'll quickly refer you to their agent ... Athletes, actors, ceos and professionals all have their agents who work for them and earn a percentage of the income that their clients generate.

 

Even doctors, lawyers, hair dressers, barbers, real estate agents, insurance agents, stock brokers, etc., etc., all benefit from their 'professional' organizations that operate as guilds and have harnessed the power of the state through professional licensing laws to provide those working in those professions protections from competition.

 

All these folks are allowed to have unions that represent those in their professions to the public and to employers (A hospital can't hire an unlicensed nurse to do nursing, for instance.)

 

The reason businesses are against all this is because they know that the power of a union to do things is enormous and they don't want regular workers to have access to that power.

 

This anti-union argument has been framed in a number of ways from the grunt "unions bad" to your line: "I guess that most people believe unions were once good and are now antiquated."

 

The plain fact is that the unions are about the only power in society that has successfully challenged the oligarchs and they're not going to crush them and continue crushing them every where they can and as long as they can.

 

I say this as one who has never been in a union, been asked to be in a union or thinks, for some reason, that unions are somehow either good or bad - some are both and every institution man has devised has been gamed for personal gain.

 

But bottom line, everyone has the right to an agent of their choice to represent them in dealings with others. If they choose a union agent, that is their right.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell us why union leaders and officers make so much more than their dues paying members? Look at the benefit and retirement packages they reward themselves with as well. Let's not forget how UAW leaders as well as those in other unions also get as bonuses up to 3% of profit sharing dues collected from their entire union membership. Where does all the union money go? How much goes to help collective bargaining compared to how much goes to politicians they support?

 

The figures you cited ranged from just over $500,000/yr for the SAG-AFTRA (actors talent) union presidents to more modest $220-380,000 for other union presidents. Considering that the average union wage is probably $60-70,000 for the 'average' union worker these figures are maybe 5 or 10 times the 'average' wage of the membership.

 

This compares to corporate executives who incomes are not $500,000 but sometimes 50,000,000 or more - on average the wage being as much as 370 times ... a $50,000 wage ($50,000 x 370= $18,500,000)

 

Both are executives and in the old days, when CEO's earned 40 and 50 times the wage of the average worker - the average workers wage was $10,000/yr and the CEO's was $500,000 to $750,000.

 

Your rendition of executive salaries is simply designed to obfuscate the issue.

 

When the Democrats held the majority of both houses and the WH during periods of both the Clinton and Obama administrations, what did they accomplish for the middle-class? Nothing. Pubby claims wages for the middle-class have been stagnant since the Reagan administration and that's BS. Go look at the figures for national average wage index provided by the Social Security Administration and take a look at the figures yourself. Between 1983 and 2013, the average wage increased $29,649. Between 2001 to 2008, wages increased $8,413. Between 2009 to 2013, wages increased $4,177.

 

More spin. The social security information is based on a broad estimate of total income and as suggested elsewhere, the income benefit has accrued to those who earn most - hence the suggestion of rising inequality. (Fact is the SSI calculation is based on some odd formula designed to make folks feel better and not coincidentally, obfuscate the growing disparity in incomes.)

 

651x475xReal-Inflation-Adjusted-Mean-Hou

 

It is obvious from the graph that wages, adjusted for inflation, for those in the lower three quintiles have been essentially flat and income has accrued primarily to the wealthiest five percent of population (The video above shows the disparity more graphically.)

 

Of course when I deal with you Z in a conversation of this type, I can't help but remember those immortal words of Benjamin Disraeli ... "Thre are three kinds of lies ... Lies, damn lies and statistics."

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my training, I received over ten thousand hours of classroom and ojt training before I was considered a journeyman. There is no part of the pipe trades industry that I was not trained in. From learning about the differences in types of pliers to industrial rigging, to installing medical gas systems. I was required to learn welding, as well as backflow prevention. I was trained not just to glue or solder pipe, but how to interpret every type of blueprint, from site work to finish, including electrical, structural, civil, and every other craft that is included. The union contractors build the big projects. Your power houses, both of your new stadiums, 9 out of ten of your healthcare facilities. Damn near anything that could destroy or create major problems for an entire community. Look around at these retail shops that have issues with their buildings from day one and then look at your new hospital in Hiram, or kennestone, or emory or piedmont, or how about northside, or your children's healthcare of Atlanta, or wait for it, the Baxter bioscience, your nuclear power houses. You see even the big corporations know they get what they pay for. You see my training is superior and shortcuts are not taught. The only way is the right way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The figures you cited ranged from just over $500,000/yr for the SAG-AFTRA (actors talent) union presidents to more modest $220-380,000 for other union presidents. Considering that the average union wage is probably $60-70,000 for the 'average' union worker these figures are maybe 5 or 10 times the 'average' wage of the membership.

 

This compares to corporate executives who incomes are not $500,000 but sometimes 50,000,000 or more - on average the wage being as much as 370 times ... a $50,000 wage ($50,000 x 370= $18,500,000)

 

Both are executives and in the old days, when CEO's earned 40 and 50 times the wage of the average worker - the average workers wage was $10,000/yr and the CEO's was $500,000 to $750,000.

 

Your rendition of executive salaries is simply designed to obfuscate the issue.

 

 

More spin. The social security information is based on a broad estimate of total income and as suggested elsewhere, the income benefit has accrued to those who earn most - hence the suggestion of rising inequality. (Fact is the SSI calculation is based on some odd formula designed to make folks feel better and not coincidentally, obfuscate the growing disparity in incomes.)

 

651x475xReal-Inflation-Adjusted-Mean-Hou

 

It is obvious from the graph that wages, adjusted for inflation, for those in the lower three quintiles have been essentially flat and income has accrued primarily to the wealthiest five percent of population (The video above shows the disparity more graphically.)

 

Of course when I deal with you Z in a conversation of this type, I can't help but remember those immortal words of Benjamin Disraeli ... "Thre are three kinds of lies ... Lies, damn lies and statistics."

 

pubby

The wages provided by the Social Security Administration was not adjusted for inflation. You can try to spin it anyway you want, but the figures disprove your accusation that wages have been stagnant since the Reagan administration. You can also try to spin the union leaders and staff earnings as you want. Using your own "logic" that a CEO's income is grossly higher than the lowest employee's can also be used to prove the earnings of union leaders are grossly higher than those of the lowest paid union member paying dues.

 

A 2013 Washington Times article revealed the president of the boilermakers union received a salary of $506,000 plus hundreds of thousands of dollars for travel expenses. The president for the Transportation Communications Union received a salary of $300,000 that was bumped up to $750,000 with business expenses. Over the past decade, union bosses wages have increased while membership has declined.

 

These union leaders are nothing more than hypocrites when it comes to their earnings.

For my training, I received over ten thousand hours of classroom and ojt training before I was considered a journeyman. There is no part of the pipe trades industry that I was not trained in. From learning about the differences in types of pliers to industrial rigging, to installing medical gas systems. I was required to learn welding, as well as backflow prevention. I was trained not just to glue or solder pipe, but how to interpret every type of blueprint, from site work to finish, including electrical, structural, civil, and every other craft that is included. The union contractors build the big projects. Your power houses, both of your new stadiums, 9 out of ten of your healthcare facilities. Damn near anything that could destroy or create major problems for an entire community. Look around at these retail shops that have issues with their buildings from day one and then look at your new hospital in Hiram, or kennestone, or emory or piedmont, or how about northside, or your children's healthcare of Atlanta, or wait for it, the Baxter bioscience, your nuclear power houses. You see even the big corporations know they get what they pay for. You see my training is superior and shortcuts are not taught. The only way is the right way.

Do you think all non-union members are not equal to you in training?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I like best about Unions is the quality of training, hence the quality of product delivered.

Is the products made by GM, Chrysler, or Ford better than BMW, Mercedes, and others? Is it the training the union provides or is it the training the company provides?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the products made by GM, Chrysler, or Ford better than BMW, Mercedes, and others? Is it the training the union provides or is it the training the company provides?

It's the training the union provides, it's a fairly tough commitment. Come se, come sa doesn't work for me when it comes to electricity. I want a disciplined training when it comes to that type thing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The worse thing about employees not being represented by a union is their inability to have a negotiated contract. Employees who have not negotiated a contract must abide by a contract made up completely by the company they work for. In order to work for the company you have to sign their contract, and without union representation you are at their mercy. Do as they say, no matter what they ask, or you can be fired for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.

 

I hate to be at the mercy of an employer. We used to even have to work at some company job, just to have healthcare insurance. Thank God, a union doesn't have to negotiate that BS, with a company, anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The worse thing about employees not being represented by a union is their inability to have a negotiated contract. Employees who have not negotiated a contract must abide by a contract made up completely by the company they work for. In order to work for the company you have to sign their contract, and without union representation you are at their mercy.

 

Not true if you are great at your job.

 

 

Do as they say, no matter what they ask, or you can be fired for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.

 

 

Do you think you should be able to quit a job at any time for any reason? If so, why can't the employer do the same?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank executives make more money than that, but here is a draw back from being the chief executive in the banking business.

 

Mary Callahan Erdoes, CEO of JPM Asset Management was paid $15 million including a $4.9 million cash bonus. Matthew Zames, Co-Chief Operating Officer, and Daniel E. Pinto, Co-CEO Corporate & Investment Bank, each were paid $17 million including bonuses of $6.1 million and $8.1 million respectively.

 

Executives make money.

 

Of course, she's a woman. but I'm for equal pay for equal work.

 

Unions help balance the scale for women in the work place.

 

Here's how non union people think on that issue:

 

https://youtu.be/2eB3OaN_izI

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not true if you are great at your job.

 

 

 

Do you think you should be able to quit a job at any time for any reason? If so, why can't the employer do the same?

 

 

I think you are as much of a federalist as I am cptio! You are just a corporation supporter. Are you an ALAC Union member.

 

I, on the other hand, support a different side of the US market.

 

Here's my slogan: The_hand_that_will_rule_the_world.jpg

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think you are as much of a federalist as I am cptio! You are just a corporation supporter. Are you an ALAC Union member.

 

I, on the other hand, support a different side of the US market.

 

Here's my slogan: The_hand_that_will_rule_the_world.jpg

What the heck is ALAC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck is ALAC?

225px-Bigstock-ALEC-logo-businessman-Spo

 

They call themselves The American Legislative Exchange Council, They are not a labor union, but they do unite into a union.

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through the secretive meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, corporate lobbyists and state legislators vote as equals on ‘model bills’ to change our rights that often benefit the corporations’ bottom line at public expense. ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where corporations buy a seat and a vote on ‘task forces’ to advance their legislative wish lists and can get a tax break for donations, effectively passing these lobbying costs on to taxpayers.

Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations.

Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills.

ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. We agree. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

For you open shop boys, yeah my training is not just better it is the best. The big corporations know it hence we get the work. We have standards that exceed local and state standards. Our safety program for the United Association of pipefitters, welders, plumbers, service technicians and sprinkler fitters is the best. Two thirds of Atlanta has been built by us the IBEW or the the sheet metal workers. When I walk on a construction site and there are non union subs, I know that my chances of being injured has dramatically increased. We may not be perfect but we are better than any other.

 

As for the government unions well they are government workers. The elected or the hired can definitely be improved upon. And guess what I can be fired just as quick as any non union employee. We are taught to make our company money so that we can continue to feed our family. A fair days pay for a fair days work.

 

Before you bash unions get your facts straight people. You read one headline and it becomes the gospel. Keep believing that the people in power give a crap about you. The minute they can stick it to you they will. Look at the industries that will higher under qualified or illegal workers to cut their overhead, they care about their pockets, and do whatever they can to line them. Don't believe it, look at the next road being paved, or at the next school lawn in this county being cut. Yeah Kelly landscape uses illegals that have not had a background check to maintain county land including elementary schools.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For you open shop boys, yeah my training is not just better it is the best. The big corporations know it hence we get the work. We have standards that exceed local and state standards. Our safety program for the United Association of pipefitters, welders, plumbers, service technicians and sprinkler fitters is the best. Two thirds of Atlanta has been built by us the IBEW or the the sheet metal workers. When I walk on a construction site and there are non union subs, I know that my chances of being injured has dramatically increased. We may not be perfect but we are better than any other.

 

As for the government unions well they are government workers. The elected or the hired can definitely be improved upon. And guess what I can be fired just as quick as any non union employee. We are taught to make our company money so that we can continue to feed our family. A fair days pay for a fair days work.

 

Before you bash unions get your facts straight people. You read one headline and it becomes the gospel. Keep believing that the people in power give a crap about you. The minute they can stick it to you they will. Look at the industries that will higher under qualified or illegal workers to cut their overhead, they care about their pockets, and do whatever they can to line them. Don't believe it, look at the next road being paved, or at the next school lawn in this county being cut. Yeah Kelly landscape uses illegals that have not had a background check to maintain county land including elementary schools.

Unions now have targeted illegal immigrants for membership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, maybe my sentence structure could have been better. Non union companies love illegals. Unions love legals. Clearer now? Go call mitzi from sundial, she wants to do away with plumbing licenses in Georgia so that she can use illegals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you serious?

Yes. If the illegal is an employee, the employer should treat her like any other. If the employer knows the employee is illegal, she is breaking the law in hiring them. Are you serious?

You don't mind illegals taking good jobs from US citizens?

Why is the employer hiring an illegal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. If the illegal is an employee, the employer should treat her like any other. If the employer knows the employee is illegal, she is breaking the law in hiring them. Are you serious?

Why is the employer hiring an illegal?

 

Employers shouldn't hire illegals and they shouldn't be allowed to be in unions. Actually they shouldn't even be allowed to remain in the U.S.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Employers shouldn't hire illegals and they shouldn't be allowed to be in unions. Actually they shouldn't even be allowed to remain in the U.S.

Then your argument is about the employer, not the union. The union is about treating all employees fairly.

It is not the Union's job to verify citizenship.

If the employer wouldn't hire illegals and break the law to save a few bucks, this wouldn't even be a problem.

Isn't that how free enterprise works?

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPTLO:

 

I'm thinking that Peaches got something of yours and is somehow pulling your chain.

 

 

 

pullchain.JPG

 

 

 

BTW, the last time I looked, there were such things as "international unions" ... and they may even allow training across national borders. However, most unions, especially those like plumbers and electrical unions, tend to be great supporters of the laws including those that would bar individuals without proper documentation from being employed.

 

pubby

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPTLO:

 

I'm thinking that Peaches got something of yours and is somehow pulling your chain.

 

 

 

 

BTW, the last time I looked, there were such things as "international unions" ... and they may even allow training across national borders. However, most unions, especially those like plumbers and electrical unions, tend to be great supporters of the laws including those that would bar individuals without proper documentation from being employed.

 

pubby

 

It was already ruled in NLRA v Kolkka that illegal immigrants who are employed are eligible to sign the cards to petition for a union election as well as vote for the election. BTW this NRLB is stacked in favor of the unions and wants quickie elections and card checks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was already ruled in NLRA v Kolkka that illegal immigrants who are employed are eligible to sign the cards to petition for a union election as well as vote for the election. BTW this NRLB is stacked in favor of the unions and wants quickie elections and card checks.

So why are employers hiring illegals?

Unions are not tasked with checking citizenship. That is the employers responsibility. The union treats every employee the same, unless you are saying the union is supposed to discriminate?

Based on suspicion?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are employers hiring illegals?

Unions are not tasked with checking citizenship. That is the employers responsibility. The union treats every employee the same, unless you are saying the union is supposed to discriminate?

Based on suspicion?

Below is the current penalties for employing illegals. It is of my opinion the penalties are not harsh enough. I think the offense first should be a criminal offense, not civil. Second, the first offense should be $10,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment for each illegal caught in a person or company's employ. Third, the immigration laws need to be actively enforced and violators prosecuted. 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

(4) Cease and desist order with civil money penalty for hiring, recruiting, and referral violations

With respect to a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) of this section, the order under this subsection—
(A) shall require the person or entity to cease and desist from such violations and to pay a civil penalty in an amount of—
(i) not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom a violation of either such subsection occurred,
(ii) not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to one order under this paragraph, or
(iii) not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to more than one order under this paragraph; and
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was already ruled in NLRA v Kolkka that illegal immigrants who are employed are eligible to sign the cards to petition for a union election as well as vote for the election. BTW this NRLB is stacked in favor of the unions and wants quickie elections and card checks.

That is absurd ... what you see and object to (minor civil penalties for employing undocumented workers) would be an absolute bonanza if the employer overturned a union election because 'of the 300 employees, 200 are ineligible to vote.

 

I can just hear the boss laughing as he sez : "Iz gots 300 workers, 200 is illegals and since you gots to have 151 to form a union, we can't have no union here cause there are enough legal employees to has one. Put one over on them union folks, I did, I did!!!)

 

Of course z ...you being one of those fair and balanced folks, you stand by your position and the fact that union votes are impossible.

 

As peaches said, it is not up to the union to hire the guy. Further I would imagine that union shops - those that are organized - have a lot fewer undocumented workers than open shops.

 

The plain fact is the best way to have American jobs for Americans is to support unions. Your failure to do so is one of the reasons we have laws that slap, at most, the employers who fight unions tooth and nail and hire the undocumented. Hell, the law would probably call for the felonious penalties you are calling for if unions were stronger.

 

I actually don't know which is funnier ... you trying to portray your tough talk about laws nailing employers for hiring illegals as being supportive of American workers or your trying to blame unions for the influx and easy employ-ability of what most union folks would classify as scabs.

 

Bottom line, your hypocrisy on this issue is unfathomable.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is absurd ... what you see and object to (minor civil penalties for employing undocumented workers) would be an absolute bonanza if the employer overturned a union election because 'of the 300 employees, 200 are ineligible to vote.

 

I can just hear the boss laughing as he sez : "Iz gots 300 workers, 200 is illegals and since you gots to have 151 to form a union, we can't have no union here cause there are enough legal employees to has one. Put one over on them union folks, I did, I did!!!)

 

Of course z ...you being one of those fair and balanced folks, you stand by your position and the fact that union votes are impossible.

 

As peaches said, it is not up to the union to hire the guy. Further I would imagine that union shops - those that are organized - have a lot fewer undocumented workers than open shops.

 

The plain fact is the best way to have American jobs for Americans is to support unions. Your failure to do so is one of the reasons we have laws that slap, at most, the employers who fight unions tooth and nail and hire the undocumented. Hell, the law would probably call for the felonious penalties you are calling for if unions were stronger.

 

I actually don't know which is funnier ... you trying to portray your tough talk about laws nailing employers for hiring illegals as being supportive of American workers or your trying to blame unions for the influx and easy employ-ability of what most union folks would classify as scabs.

 

Bottom line, your hypocrisy on this issue is unfathomable.

 

pubby

Typical leftist rant that a working man cannot earn a decent wage without a union. Face the facts pubby, unions have lost their popularity because they really aren't needed anymore. As far as criminal prosecution for hiring illegals, I am definitely for it. Take away the incentives for illegals to come here and they won't. If they do, then make it damn near impossible for them to get jobs so they'll go back. They're a drain on the economy. The only reason you want them, is so they will become future Democrats.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the current penalties for employing illegals. It is of my opinion the penalties are not harsh enough. I think the offense first should be a criminal offense, not civil. Second, the first offense should be $10,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment for each illegal caught in a person or company's employ. Third, the immigration laws need to be actively enforced and violators prosecuted. 8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens

(4) Cease and desist order with civil money penalty for hiring, recruiting, and referral violations

With respect to a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) of this section, the order under this subsection—
(A) shall require the person or entity to cease and desist from such violations and to pay a civil penalty in an amount of—
(i) not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 for each unauthorized alien with respect to whom a violation of either such subsection occurred,
(ii) not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to one order under this paragraph, or
(iii) not less than $3,000 and not more than $10,000 for each such alien in the case of a person or entity previously subject to more than one order under this paragraph; and

 

Ok. So you want tougher penalties on employers. Ok.

 

That is still not a union problem to determine citizenship but the law requires employers to do that. I will say again that if the employers were not breaking the law and hiring the illegals at lower cost than citizen hiring, the problem you're bringing up is solved. You complained the unions were bringing in illegals into membership. So what? The unions are doing what they are tasked to do. That is not a left or right issue but an issue of the employer breaking the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical right wing rant. You don't want people to have agents who negotiate for them based on their class. You accept representation for those who are sports stars, actors, CEOs and the like, but you seek to deny regular folks the benefit of having an agent.

 

The relative success of those in those professions that demand agents (athletes, actors and authors, for instance) vs. people with more common skills make the assertion that 'unions' are 'obsolete' seem hollow.

 

You also suffer from the misconception that all you need is legislation to gain compliance. The truth is that folks game the system and the science is that those who are wealthier are typically more expert and less restrained by morality in their game playing. Who would deny the wealth enjoyed by those who ply the drug trade for great profit. Heck, we've even had dozens of sheriff's and LEO sucked in by the money promised in this industry.

 

Said differently, if you want American jobs for Americans, you look to institutions that are good at making that policy choice a reality. The law has failed and failed miserably since we've turned to reliance on it. This is as true in regard to jobs in meat rendering plants as it is for keeping people from becoming addicted to drugs.

 

Laws can help but based on our experience, we know there are better ways.

 

It is your inability to recognize that fact and your arrogant assertion that you are the only one who has an idea that divides us. Open your mind and realize that if you need to change your opinion of what approaches can be successful if you want American jobs for Americans.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical right wing rant. You don't want people to have agents who negotiate for them based on their class. You accept representation for those who are sports stars, actors, CEOs and the like, but you seek to deny regular folks the benefit of having an agent.

 

 

pubby

 

I stopped reading after this. Not a good analogy at all. Fail. Try again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I stopped reading after this. Not a good analogy at all. Fail. Try again.

 

 

Are you a member of the upper class federation, cptio?

 

I heard you say that a person has to be a federalist. I don't remember anything more than that. I think it was one of your short lines. How much money do you have, Sir?

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical right wing rant. You don't want people to have agents who negotiate for them based on their class. You accept representation for those who are sports stars, actors, CEOs and the like, but you seek to deny regular folks the benefit of having an agent.

 

The relative success of those in those professions that demand agents (athletes, actors and authors, for instance) vs. people with more common skills make the assertion that 'unions' are 'obsolete' seem hollow.

 

You also suffer from the misconception that all you need is legislation to gain compliance. The truth is that folks game the system and the science is that those who are wealthier are typically more expert and less restrained by morality in their game playing. Who would deny the wealth enjoyed by those who ply the drug trade for great profit. Heck, we've even had dozens of sheriff's and LEO sucked in by the money promised in this industry.

 

Said differently, if you want American jobs for Americans, you look to institutions that are good at making that policy choice a reality. The law has failed and failed miserably since we've turned to reliance on it. This is as true in regard to jobs in meat rendering plants as it is for keeping people from becoming addicted to drugs.

 

Laws can help but based on our experience, we know there are better ways.

 

It is your inability to recognize that fact and your arrogant assertion that you are the only one who has an idea that divides us. Open your mind and realize that if you need to change your opinion of what approaches can be successful if you want American jobs for Americans.

 

pubby

I don't care if people have agents to represent or negotiate for them. That's not my point at all. My point is union membership has declined because people view they aren't needed anymore because of the labor laws that exist today. The relationship between labor and management has changed and labor laws do have a lot to do with that.

 

What better ways than laws are there to keep illegal immigrants from gaining employment in the US pubby? I'm not the only person in this country who feels illegals should be forced out. What do you think is the approach that should be taken to handle illegal immigration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I stopped reading after this. Not a good analogy at all. Fail. Try again.

His analogy was like comparing apples to oranges. Athletes, actors, etc are all represented as an individual for their individual talents. Does anyone think what George Clooney's agent gets him in a movie deal gives every other actor the same rate? What Clooney gets for a movie only benefits Clooney. Cam Newton just signed a historic contract as a quarterback. Are all the other quarterbacks going to make the same money? Not hardly. How about all the other players on Newton's team; are they going to make the same money? No.

 

Now look at a labor union. A labor contract guarantees all union members at that worksite the same wage increase, regardless of their individual talent. Bob uses every personal and sick day, who is often late for work, and spends as much time in the plant bathroom as he does actually doing his job, gets paid the same as Tom, who rarely uses a personal or sick day, is never late, and a lot more productive than Bob because he's always working like he's expected to. In fact, Tom has to work harder because Bob is unreliable.

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



×
×
  • Create New...