Jump to content
Paulding.com

Unions Hypocrisy


Recommended Posts

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.

Every worker is unique in his skills and contribution. Each individual should be recognized and rewarded for his contribution to the success of the company. Unions fail miserably and treat everyone the same. They encourage laziness.

 

"Bob" should be fired; Tom should be paid more.

Edited by ApolloBeachRetiree
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

Every worker is unique in his skills and contribution. Each individual should be recognized and rewarded for his contribution to the success of the company. Unions fail miserably and treat everyone the same. They encourage laziness.

 

"Bob" should be fired; Tom should be paid more.

I agree, Bob should be fired. When the company goes to fire Bob, he in turn files a grievance and the union defends him and Bob gets to keep his job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Bob should be fired. When the company goes to fire Bob, he in turn files a grievance and the union defends him and Bob gets to keep his job.

Another reason why unions suck.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ALEC union secretly met with Georgia Legislators, and an open records request cannot be obtained. Although this should be an impeachable offence to the public of the State of Georgia, it is not.

 

Why, because our agents work for themselves, NOT US!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Through the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, global corporations and state politicians are voting behind closed doors to try to rewrite state laws.

 

 

ALEC's model Right to Work Act - ALEC Exposed

 

Bills on this page limit workers rights and drain labor unions of resources for protecting employees, undermine consumer protections, favor the Wall Street financial agenda, limit the ability to cap exorbitant interest rates on credit cards and big bank fees. The bills and resolutions here also attempt to funnel tax dollars to for-profit corporations through privatization schemes and push the "free trade" agenda that has shipped good-paying American jobs overseas.

Through ALEC, corporations have both a VOICE and a VOTE on specific state laws to change worker and consumer rights through these model bills. Do you?

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

I know, it is not an analogy ... it is the exact same thing. Agents negotiating the employment of their clients. The only practical difference is that one does it individually and the other does it collectively ...

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a Father in law who was in the mechanics union for many years, I've heard both good and bad about them.

 

The mechanics union saved his job one year where the boss had misunderstood a situation and though that my FIL was stealing parts from the shop and fired him. FIL tried to talk to him, but the boss didn't want to talk to him to hear the entire story. FIL went to the union and the rep went in and forced the management to look at the evidence and cleared him. Unions can have a place in making sure that justice is done, though I agree that now a days they will often fight for the wrong people as well.

 

On the other hand, the drivers union ended up getting greedy and ran the company into shutdown. The owner told the drivers that they were having a shortfall and he was asking them to take a slight cut in pay for 6 months, with a guarantee the rates would return to current pay at the end of that period and he would also try to make up for the money lost during the 6 months if possible.

 

The union said no..

 

Week later, everyone in the company got a pink slip in with their last paychecks he shut the company down. THEN the drivers union suddenly were interested in taking the cut, but he told them "Too late". He took the company assets and either sold them or transferred them to a non-union trucking company he was part owner in.

 

Cool thing was that the owner knew my FIL was only six months or so from retirement. Since he was in a different union, he was allowed to work there for the next six months cleaning, servicing and basically getting the equipment ready for transfer and auction so he could retire without having to find a six month job (which would have been near impossible)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a Father in law who was in the mechanics union for many years, I've heard both good and bad about them.

 

The mechanics union saved his job one year where the boss had misunderstood a situation and though that my FIL was stealing parts from the shop and fired him. FIL tried to talk to him, but the boss didn't want to talk to him to hear the entire story. FIL went to the union and the rep went in and forced the management to look at the evidence and cleared him. Unions can have a place in making sure that justice is done, though I agree that now a days they will often fight for the wrong people as well.

 

...snip ...

 

 

 

That is what sports agents do to smooth over disputes in the locker room or the green room ... Denying regular folks that kind of third party support because of an ideological belief that ownership of a business gives the personality unassailable rights to fire is silly and self-defeating in many, many instances.

 

I'll not say that unions are perfect as I'm sure that actors have disputes with their agents as well ... perfection eludes us all ... but it is not something that should be thrown out on some misplaced principals regarding the sanctity of property rights.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor unions should stop allowing the label that other organizations don't allow. Which is UNION. It's like using the U word, to insult certain people, instead of the N word to insult people.

 

Like Pubby says, people have a right to be represented. In fact, here in Georgia, TAXPAYERS need representatives. The sons-of-beaches down in Savannah Georgia was sure as hell not representing tax paying Georgia citizens.

 

In fact they had armed guards to keep out citizens who were actually there trying to represent Georgia citizens.

 

 

635677620649636882-keefe-backroom520.jpg

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unions now have targeted illegal immigrants for membership.

If employers weren't breaking the law by hiring illegals, this would not be a problem. Just to save a buck,the employer hires the illegals. The union looks for membership from all employees and the union is not tasked with verifying immigration status. Are you OK with employers hiring illegals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If employers weren't breaking the law by hiring illegals, this would not be a problem. Just to save a buck,the employer hires the illegals. The union looks for membership from all employees and the union is not tasked with verifying immigration status. Are you OK with employers hiring illegals?

Look at one of my earlier posts and you will see where I clearly stated the offense for hiring them should be criminal and the penalties increased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at one of my earlier posts and you will see where I clearly stated the offense for hiring them should be criminal and the penalties increased.

Then what's the problem with the unions seeking them as members? The unions are about employees and it is not their job to verify status. Would you support making it not only illegal for the company to hire the illegals, but to make the individuals also criminally liable so that it is not just a fine for the company, but the company execs can serve jail time for their company doing this?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at one of my earlier posts and you will see where I clearly stated the offense for hiring them should be criminal and the penalties increased.

 

It is currently illegal and has been for as long as I can remember ... which is a pretty long time.

 

Are you saying that business owners - the job creators - have to face massive jail time and enormous fines before they'll comply with the law?

 

... wait, that is exactly what you're saying - that the business owners of America - over 90 percent of the businesses and corporate equities are held by people in the top ten percent of incomes who coincidentally are the same folks that you want to cut taxes for as well.

 

Oh yeah, and because you've already cut taxes, one reason the law isn't followed is because there is obviously no money for law enforcement of just the type that you're recommending.

 

If the people won't follow the law now, what makes you think they'll follow the law if it is toughened? The lax enforcement because government doesn't have the budget to hire folks to enforce the law in the first place, not the tough language.

 

And considering that the people elected are elected with campaign funds from just the same people who lobby for lax laws and lax enforcement and pretty much get 'political cover' from their buds in public office, do you really think that tougher 'wordage' in the law is going to make the slightest bit of difference in compliance?

 

Bottom line, your plan doesn't work and it is a joke to suggest that it does because the people putting your guys in office are the people benefiting from the illegal laborers and the lax enforcement. They could enact a law that calls for the death penalty for the crime of hiring an illegal and it would suffer the same fate as the current law - lack of enforcement because of tight budgets and political cover for the activity.

 

All you're doing with your 'tough law' diatribe is beating your chest and let me tell you, you ain't Tarzan and the elephants are not impressed.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is currently illegal and has been for as long as I can remember ... which is a pretty long time.

 

Are you saying that business owners - the job creators - have to face massive jail time and enormous fines before they'll comply with the law?

 

... wait, that is exactly what you're saying - that the business owners of America - over 90 percent of the businesses and corporate equities are held by people in the top ten percent of incomes who coincidentally are the same folks that you want to cut taxes for as well.

 

Oh yeah, and because you've already cut taxes, one reason the law isn't followed is because there is obviously no money for law enforcement of just the type that you're recommending.

 

If the people won't follow the law now, what makes you think they'll follow the law if it is toughened? The lax enforcement because government doesn't have the budget to hire folks to enforce the law in the first place, not the tough language.

 

And considering that the people elected are elected with campaign funds from just the same people who lobby for lax laws and lax enforcement and pretty much get 'political cover' from their buds in public office, do you really think that tougher 'wordage' in the law is going to make the slightest bit of difference in compliance?

 

Bottom line, your plan doesn't work and it is a joke to suggest that it does because the people putting your guys in office are the people benefiting from the illegal laborers and the lax enforcement. They could enact a law that calls for the death penalty for the crime of hiring an illegal and it would suffer the same fate as the current law - lack of enforcement because of tight budgets and political cover for the activity.

 

All you're doing with your 'tough law' diatribe is beating your chest and let me tell you, you ain't Tarzan and the elephants are not impressed.

 

pubby

You mean to say that not one Democrat is in the top 1%? We know that's not true. We also know that there are many business owners in this country who are also Democrats. You attempt to project that all businesses or individuals who hire illegals are all conservatives, which that is not true either. Your party has taken a very strong position to grant amnesty to illegals and provide them a pathway to citizenship. Your party also proclaims are borders are secure; an indication that people can no longer cross our borders with ease, which we also know not to be true.

 

The truth of the matter is, there are those regardless of their party affiliation who hire illegals and will continue to hire illegals to save a buck. Those employers lack the integrity to follow laws regarding the employment of illegals. It helps them when the penalties for doing so impacts them no more than the cost of a parking ticket impacts most of us. When a fine is $250 to $2,000 for a company that makes profits in the hundreds of thousands or billions of dollars a year; what impact do the low fines for hiring illegals have? None, they'll just keep on hiring them.

 

You want to make this issue soley about conservative v. liberals because you want to blame everything on conservatives. I blaming both. I'm looking at the big picture here and the impact illegal immigration and the abuse of HB1 visas are having on our economy. Each contributing to the shrinking of the middle-class in our country and the difficulty my grandchildren will be facing when they begin to enter the workplace. Look at the difficulty recent college graduates are having finding jobs today.

 

I find it funny how you and others here on the left portray Eisenhower as such a great president because of what he said about the industrial military complex. What about his "Operation Wetback" where law enforcement, border patrol, and the military was used to round up illegals in this country and send them back? He saw the strain illegal immigration was having on our economy. The operation resulted in more illegals self-deporting than those who were deported by government means.

 

The fact is, as long as illegals are here employers regardless of what party they are affiliated will give them jobs to save money.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having had a Father in law who was in the mechanics union for many years, I've heard both good and bad about them.

 

The mechanics union saved his job one year where the boss had misunderstood a situation and though that my FIL was stealing parts from the shop and fired him. FIL tried to talk to him, but the boss didn't want to talk to him to hear the entire story. FIL went to the union and the rep went in and forced the management to look at the evidence and cleared him. Unions can have a place in making sure that justice is done, though I agree that now a days they will often fight for the wrong people as well.

 

On the other hand, the drivers union ended up getting greedy and ran the company into shutdown. The owner told the drivers that they were having a shortfall and he was asking them to take a slight cut in pay for 6 months, with a guarantee the rates would return to current pay at the end of that period and he would also try to make up for the money lost during the 6 months if possible.

 

The union said no..

 

Week later, everyone in the company got a pink slip in with their last paychecks he shut the company down. THEN the drivers union suddenly were interested in taking the cut, but he told them "Too late". He took the company assets and either sold them or transferred them to a non-union trucking company he was part owner in.

 

Cool thing was that the owner knew my FIL was only six months or so from retirement. Since he was in a different union, he was allowed to work there for the next six months cleaning, servicing and basically getting the equipment ready for transfer and auction so he could retire without having to find a six month job (which would have been near impossible)

 

 

I appreciate what you say and I am pleased to read the story about your FIL. That does not change my personal experiences with unions, all of which have been negative.

 

I believe that a business has the right to eliminate anything that is a negative contributor to its success. That includes all resources whether it be a subsidiary, a building, equipment, or people. Unfortunately, it is often better to eliminate jobs and attempt to stay in business than to maintain the status quo and go out of business. Just ask Eastern Airlines, whose machinists' union forced them out of business:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-brought-down-by-a-strike-so-bitter-it-became-a-crusade.html

 

I would be more positive about unions if their members were paid for performance and if poor performance by a member meant he or she would be fired. In my experience, the polar opposites are the reality of labor unions.

 

I find unions' practices largely intolerable. They are a negative weight on our economy.

Edited by ApolloBeachRetiree
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The U-word is just a label, and people connect it to labor. But there has been a lot of good to come out of the labor force that was very taxing to the people who did the work. They should have had more representation, not less.

 

Taxation without representation is not what this Union (The United States of America) is all about. We want our tax payers to be represented. People who thinks taxes, in this country, are in $ alone are stupid. Taxes are paid by illegal aliens, who pick the crops you see as fruits and vegetables at the grocery store. Taxes are paid by all sorts of unions (groups of people), without representation.

 

The Chinese have paid a lot of taxes, here, when our railroads were built, and they had very little representation while they were here paying taxes.

 

Don't be stupid, folks. Tax = Duty

 

When you do your duty you need representation.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean to say that not one Democrat is in the top 1%? We know that's not true. We also know that there are many business owners in this country who are also Democrats. You attempt to project that all businesses or individuals who hire illegals are all conservatives, which that is not true either. Your party has taken a very strong position to grant amnesty to illegals and provide them a pathway to citizenship. Your party also proclaims are borders are secure; an indication that people can no longer cross our borders with ease, which we also know not to be true.

 

The truth of the matter is, there are those regardless of their party affiliation who hire illegals and will continue to hire illegals to save a buck. Those employers lack the integrity to follow laws regarding the employment of illegals. It helps them when the penalties for doing so impacts them no more than the cost of a parking ticket impacts most of us. When a fine is $250 to $2,000 for a company that makes profits in the hundreds of thousands or billions of dollars a year; what impact do the low fines for hiring illegals have? None, they'll just keep on hiring them.

 

You want to make this issue soley about conservative v. liberals because you want to blame everything on conservatives. I blaming both. I'm looking at the big picture here and the impact illegal immigration and the abuse of HB1 visas are having on our economy. Each contributing to the shrinking of the middle-class in our country and the difficulty my grandchildren will be facing when they begin to enter the workplace. Look at the difficulty recent college graduates are having finding jobs today.

 

I find it funny how you and others here on the left portray Eisenhower as such a great president because of what he said about the industrial military complex. What about his "Operation Wetback" where law enforcement, border patrol, and the military was used to round up illegals in this country and send them back? He saw the strain illegal immigration was having on our economy. The operation resulted in more illegals self-deporting than those who were deported by government means.

 

The fact is, as long as illegals are here employers regardless of what party they are affiliated will give them jobs to save money.

 

I have no doubt that the hiring of cheap undocumented workers does not respect party lines. Heck, even Mitt had a crew of illegals keeping up one of his houses (he claimed he was not responsible.)

 

The idea of saving money on labor is not a new motivation but raising fines and penalties through the criminal justice system is not the only way to social engineer the issue. We put so much on the criminal justice system already and frankly, it is probably the least effective way to accomplish policy goals like this ... unless you just like paying lawyers $800/hr.

 

Unions can be employed by society and can be legislated about to stipulate that for a shop to be a closed union shop, all union members would have to be documented and legally entitled to work or they can be fined. It wouldn't make any difference what the fine was, the union would comply with that law because it is in their interest to comply (unlike the employer who would stand to pocket money by hiring a low-wage, undocumented non-union worker.)

 

It is not about liberal or conservative, frankly ... it is about aligning the incentives with the preferred action. It is called pragmatism and it takes a little more thought than the average person - liberal or conservative - is willing to exert on something that they believe can be solved by royal edict.

 

I know, I know, you hate unions because they tend to drag out things in terms of time to delivery. Did you ever wonder why? Of course it is because they are paid 'hourly' so if a job takes ten hours and they make $30/hr, that is $300 in their pocket. If they could do the job in two hours and put $200 in their pocket and do another job in two hours and another job in two hours for a total of five jobs - each earning $200 (or $1000 total), I would wager that if it were possible, they'd accomplish that working so rapidly as to be make your head spin.

 

The point ... when you base your negotiations on time spent with no incentives to put things in high gear ... of course it is going to take longer.

 

Of course with some jobs time is the nature of the task and the efficiency comes in the ability of an individual to avoid having to have additional help to accomplish the tasks done (serve customers). There are ways, including a deeper understanding of work rules, that are all subject to negotiation.

 

But it does take an open mind, on the part of all, to make a society work.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have no doubt that the hiring of cheap undocumented workers does not respect party lines. Heck, even Mitt had a crew of illegals keeping up one of his houses (he claimed he was not responsible.)

 

The idea of saving money on labor is not a new motivation but raising fines and penalties through the criminal justice system is not the only way to social engineer the issue. We put so much on the criminal justice system already and frankly, it is probably the least effective way to accomplish policy goals like this ... unless you just like paying lawyers $800/hr.

 

Unions can be employed by society and can be legislated about to stipulate that for a shop to be a closed union shop, all union members would have to be documented and legally entitled to work or they can be fined. It wouldn't make any difference what the fine was, the union would comply with that law because it is in their interest to comply (unlike the employer who would stand to pocket money by hiring a low-wage, undocumented non-union worker.)

 

It is not about liberal or conservative, frankly ... it is about aligning the incentives with the preferred action. It is called pragmatism and it takes a little more thought than the average person - liberal or conservative - is willing to exert on something that they believe can be solved by royal edict.

 

I know, I know, you hate unions because they tend to drag out things in terms of time to delivery. Did you ever wonder why? Of course it is because they are paid 'hourly' so if a job takes ten hours and they make $30/hr, that is $300 in their pocket. If they could do the job in two hours and put $200 in their pocket and do another job in two hours and another job in two hours for a total of five jobs - each earning $200 (or $1000 total), I would wager that if it were possible, they'd accomplish that working so rapidly as to be make your head spin.

 

The point ... when you base your negotiations on time spent with no incentives to put things in high gear ... of course it is going to take longer.

 

Of course with some jobs time is the nature of the task and the efficiency comes in the ability of an individual to avoid having to have additional help to accomplish the tasks done (serve customers). There are ways, including a deeper understanding of work rules, that are all subject to negotiation.

 

But it does take an open mind, on the part of all, to make a society work.

 

pubby

I have offered a solution to deter employers from hiring illegals, yet you seem to think it's absurd without offering an idea yourself. So, what do you think should be done to deter employers from hiring illegals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have offered a solution to deter employers from hiring illegals, yet you seem to think it's absurd without offering an idea yourself. So, what do you think should be done to deter employers from hiring illegals?

 

 

I don't think your solution will work near as well as going ahead and allowing employers to hire all the illegals they want to hire, and then unionize them. That will result in ALEC meeting with Law Makers to provider better legislation about employers hiring their workers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you say and I am pleased to read the story about your FIL. That does not change my personal experiences with unions, all of which have been negative.

 

I believe that a business has the right to eliminate anything that is a negative contributor to its success. That includes all resources whether it be a subsidiary, a building, equipment, or people. Unfortunately, it is often better to eliminate jobs and attempt to stay in business than to maintain the status quo and go out of business. Just ask Eastern Airlines, whose machinists' union forced them out of business:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/20/us/eastern-airlines-brought-down-by-a-strike-so-bitter-it-became-a-crusade.html

 

I would be more positive about unions if their members were paid for performance and if poor performance by a member meant he or she would be fired. In my experience, the polar opposites are the reality of labor unions.

 

I find unions' practices largely intolerable. They are a negative weight on our economy.

 

Oh I agree with what you say. When there were no labor laws and the union was required to counter balance the pure capitalism of the owners, the unions had a place. However, from my POV, once the government created all the laws to protect workers, for the most part, the unions lost much of their worth, so they began to try to justify their existence and moved into pushing wages way beyond the going rate and protecting those that didn't need to be protected just to keep the union jobs alive.

 

It's kinda like the political parties, neither the company nor the union is looking out for the future of the jobs anymore, just like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are looking at the good of the country. All of them are just trying to get what they can and justify people giving them more.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have offered a solution to deter employers from hiring illegals, yet you seem to think it's absurd without offering an idea yourself. So, what do you think should be done to deter employers from hiring illegals?

Oh but I did. I offered the idea of allowing unions to police the employers by demanding closed shops. Since employers typically choose to hire the undocumented because they work for less, there is no advantage to hiring them if they are not allowed to join the union.

 

 

 

I don't think your solution will work near as well as going ahead and allowing employers to hire all the illegals they want to hire, and then unionize them. That will result in ALEC meeting with Law Makers to provider better legislation about employers hiring their workers.

While this is totally convoluted and inane, I think the point is that TP is saying that even if you let unions accept the undocumented into their membership - i.e. unionize them - this would solve the problem of illegals working in the US because the businesses would simply export the jobs elsewhere in a continued effort to eliminate unions. ... cept I think instead of the last three words being 'hiring their workers' the law the corporations would lobby the legislators in ALEC to write would be about 'firing their workers.'

 

 

Oh I agree with what you say. When there were no labor laws and the union was required to counter balance the pure capitalism of the owners, the unions had a place. However, from my POV, once the government created all the laws to protect workers, for the most part, the unions lost much of their worth, so they began to try to justify their existence and moved into pushing wages way beyond the going rate and protecting those that didn't need to be protected just to keep the union jobs alive.

 

It's kinda like the political parties, neither the company nor the union is looking out for the future of the jobs anymore, just like neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are looking at the good of the country. All of them are just trying to get what they can and justify people giving them more.

 

SG:

 

I get your attitude but I want you to think about the real role of an agent ... whether that agent is a travel agent, an attorney or talent agent. Their job is exactly what you say it is ... to get their clients what they can which justifies their existence.

 

The principal is that people, whether individually or in groups, are free if they have the right to hire someone to look out for their interests. This goes for regular citizens in their selection of elected public servants; actors in their relationship with a talent agent; a person seeking the aid of the court in getting justice when a tort has been committed against them or a worker seeking to get better working conditions.

 

It is the principal of the thing that is the issue.

 

And the fact that workers, in earlier times, convinced their agents (the elected officials of a particular congress) to enact say a minimum wage law. However, some elected officials - those that took campaign contributions from businesses - decided not to keep that minimum wage in step with inflation and so now, that law is now outdated when it calls for $7.35/hr because, if that amount were simply adjusted for inflation to today, the wage rate would be $21.50/hr. in terms of 'buying power.'

 

Did the 'public agents favoring labor change?' Yes they did and the changes were probably not based on that issue but on which guy looks best draped in the flag or whether sinful teens should be taught the birds and bees in school or whether you believe the world is 4.8 billion or just 6000 years old - issues that are of no real practical bearing on how hard you work or under what conditions.

 

The point is not just the principal that people have a right to an agent, but the agents they do engage need to focus on the area they're hired to do.

 

Unless or until you want to repeal the first amendment, you can't define the job of the guy seeking election to the Congress or what he says.

 

You want someone to focus on the task of representing you including lobbying for labor laws you would prefer, you're going to have to hire an agent and a lobbyist - just like the corporations do to pursue their agenda.

 

And that is the way it should be; you should be able to hire agents to do this stuff for you because they do it a lot better than you do.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh but I did. I offered the idea of allowing unions to police the employers by demanding closed shops. Since employers typically choose to hire the undocumented because they work for less, there is no advantage to hiring them if they are not allowed to join the union.

 

While this is totally convoluted and inane, I think the point is that TP is saying that even if you let unions accept the undocumented into their membership - i.e. unionize them - this would solve the problem of illegals working in the US because the businesses would simply export the jobs elsewhere in a continued effort to eliminate unions. ... cept I think instead of the last three words being 'hiring their workers' the law the corporations would lobby the legislators in ALEC to write would be about 'firing their workers.'

 

 

SG:

 

I get your attitude but I want you to think about the real role of an agent ... whether that agent is a travel agent, an attorney or talent agent. Their job is exactly what you say it is ... to get their clients what they can which justifies their existence.

 

The principal is that people, whether individually or in groups, are free if they have the right to hire someone to look out for their interests. This goes for regular citizens in their selection of elected public servants; actors in their relationship with a talent agent; a person seeking the aid of the court in getting justice when a tort has been committed against them or a worker seeking to get better working conditions.

 

It is the principal of the thing that is the issue.

 

And the fact that workers, in earlier times, convinced their agents (the elected officials of a particular congress) to enact say a minimum wage law. However, some elected officials - those that took campaign contributions from businesses - decided not to keep that minimum wage in step with inflation and so now, that law is now outdated when it calls for $7.35/hr because, if that amount were simply adjusted for inflation to today, the wage rate would be $21.50/hr. in terms of 'buying power.'

 

Did the 'public agents favoring labor change?' Yes they did and the changes were probably not based on that issue but on which guy looks best draped in the flag or whether sinful teens should be taught the birds and bees in school or whether you believe the world is 4.8 billion or just 6000 years old - issues that are of no real practical bearing on how hard you work or under what conditions.

 

The point is not just the principal that people have a right to an agent, but the agents they do engage need to focus on the area they're hired to do.

 

Unless or until you want to repeal the first amendment, you can't define the job of the guy seeking election to the Congress or what he says.

 

You want someone to focus on the task of representing you including lobbying for labor laws you would prefer, you're going to have to hire an agent and a lobbyist - just like the corporations do to pursue their agenda.

 

And that is the way it should be; you should be able to hire agents to do this stuff for you because they do it a lot better than you do.

 

pubby

In other words, you think the solution is for every place of employment to be a union shop. What you're calling for is for all of us as individuals to lose the right to choose whether we want to be in a union or not; to have unions forced upon us.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you think the solution is for every place of employment to be a union shop. What you're calling for is for all of us as individuals to lose the right to choose whether we want to be in a union or not; to have unions forced upon us.

I wonder how the Pubster feels about our "free" market economy? Deep down inside does he want the government to control its every aspect? Based on his posts, he indicates a certain level of comfort with the government being involved in the private sector to an even greater degree than it is today; and, that ain't capitalism.

Edited by ApolloBeachRetiree
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject is whether unions are hypocrites. Yes they are. Unions are bottom feeders, take money from people to get a job. Take money from people and give to Democrats to keep money coming into unions so they can give money to Democrats. The cycle continues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject is whether unions are hypocrites. Yes they are. Unions are bottom feeders, take money from people to get a job. Take money from people and give to Democrats to keep money coming into unions so they can give money to Democrats. The cycle continues.

I am currently half-way through my MBA program with a concentration in Human Resource Management. A classmate's husband was recently hired in a company with a union. He has no choice but to be in the union and is required to pay a $400 initiation fee. That's ridiculous.

 

The UAW constitution requires its international leadership (president, vice-presidents, secretary-treasurer, and board members) to receive an annual payment of up to 3% of profit sharing dues. The profit sharing dues are 1.15% of the profit sharing check UAW members receive. 2015 profit sharing checks employees received from Ford was $6,900; from Chrysler $2,750; and from GM $9,000. UAW international leaders each will receive checks up to $304,584 for their cut in profit sharing. This is on top of their six-figure salaries. That disparity between the lowest paid UAW member and the international leaders grows even larger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Union hypocrites are all over this country. They pay money to get their agents to back them in their quests for whatever they decide they want, bad enough, to hire representatives to go after.

 

Some unions can afford armed guards to keep unwanted guest at bay while they negotiate serious contracts, which will affect people who are not at the gathering they hold in private rooms, across this country.

 

Millions, and even billions, of dollars exchanges hands, while they create those negotiated contracts.They then make a book, so people can flip through the pages to find what has been negotiated as contracted law.

 

You're damned right it's hypocritical. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently half-way through my MBA program with a concentration in Human Resource Management. A classmate's husband was recently hired in a company with a union. He has no choice but to be in the union and is required to pay a $400 initiation fee. That's ridiculous.

 

The UAW constitution requires its international leadership (president, vice-presidents, secretary-treasurer, and board members) to receive an annual payment of up to 3% of profit sharing dues. The profit sharing dues are 1.15% of the profit sharing check UAW members receive. 2015 profit sharing checks employees received from Ford was $6,900; from Chrysler $2,750; and from GM $9,000. UAW international leaders each will receive checks up to $304,584 for their cut in profit sharing. This is on top of their six-figure salaries. That disparity between the lowest paid UAW member and the international leaders grows even larger.

 

And when Tom Hanks gets a movie contract that includes profit sharing does his 'agent' not get 10% (assuming the agent's customary share of their clients contracts although some talent may be able to negotiate a lower rate which is allowable under SAG - aka: union- rules.)

 

In other words, you think the solution is for every place of employment to be a union shop. What you're calling for is for all of us as individuals to lose the right to choose whether we want to be in a union or not; to have unions forced upon us.

 

First, I didn't say that... because 'one size doesn't fit all' and second, the image you wish to conjure presumes some sort of monolithic union that dictates contracts across hundreds of industries whereas it is more than conceivable that you could have as many small unions as there are companies.

 

The other key difference is that in the annals of history, the US labor movement, in part because of the intransigence of management in the early part of the last century, established a pattern of corrosive competition instead of collaborative approach to labor relations. There is a ton of research out there that shows when relations are not full of animosity and labor and management recognize they both benefit from cooperation, greater success is almost always the result.

 

The labor movement in Germany, for instance, has obtained for its workers nice circumstances and a higher standard of living than comparative US workers. The quality of the product doesn't suffer at all - German products are revered for their baseline quality - and labor and management cooperate over a ton of common issues. For instance, during the last big recession, labor opted for an approach that cut hours of all workers yet maintained employment for the vast majority of their members. Hours declined, probably at their peak, 20-25% for a period of just about a year.

 

When demand began to resume the labor force, although having worked fewer hours for a period, were still highly trained on their jobs and were able to resume full production without a decline in quality. Worker morale and all sorts of other measures of job satisfaction and involvement were even enhanced by the feeling of belonging in and association with the company, its brand and frankly, these attributes have value in the marketplace.

 

The difference is that industry and society in general in Europe, is more mature and takes a longer term view of the role of citizens, businesses and community than much of the management of the US that never looks beyond this coming quarter's numbers.

 

But then management in Europe, in part because they have experienced and are looking at longer-term labor shortages, recognize the absurdity of an adversarial relationship with labor.

 

That long term view, unfortunately, sometimes gets in the way of quote "doing the right thing" because it costs - like in the recent recession - marginally more money to keep 20,000 workers on the payroll than it does to furlough 5,000 and take them completely off the books.... and then when the market demand returns, to work the remaining 15,000 60 hours a week paying only time and a-half (and maybe pulling some shenanigans in calculating overtime for that extra little boost it would give on the quarterly report.)

 

It is the difference between figuring out how to do the job as well as you can and gaming your way to riches. In America, gaming, including financial gaming, is the dominant (but not exclusive) approach. Oh, did I say that amongst those betting on stocks, the anti-labor attitude rewards screwing labor as a way to boost stock prices. With executive compensation often based on stock prices, expressing anti-labor attitudes and layoffs, etc. just hypes the CEO's remuneration.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know pubby the majority of BMW's sold around the world are made in SC now?

 

 

Did you know that ALEC (union, or lobbying negotiators, whichever) have responded to the 11 Alive report in Savannah?

 

We still don't know what law the armed guards were using to to get 11 Alive reporters kicked out of their hotel room.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.11alive.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Finvestigations%2F2015%2F06%2F02%2Falec-responds-to-11alive-investigators-report%2F28366637%2F&ei=_cNzVaiAIMTEsAX7voF4&usg=AFQjCNGFfdm9puEwbCKKP2qrYtijzXO78A&sig2=w-QBDUDS3kXwwl8mZ9550w&bvm=bv.95039771,d.aWw

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

In many cases the union is the defacto employer. You want to work at a union job with company A, then you must join the union. Whatever laws apply towards the company should also apply towards the union. If the union allows illegals in then that would mean the company could not use their union shop employees without getting in trouble. So as the employer that has a union contract, it would seem to me to. E an affirmative defense for them to just say the union sent me an illegal, how was I to know they were breaking the law. Unions can't have it both ways.

 

As to unions in general, I think they have served their purpose. In today's world economy unions will push up wages but that will cost the US jobs. Until the world's wage market stabilizes everywhere, we will continue to see jobs leave the US especially I f they are labor intensive. That is just a basic fact. The only thing that will stop that is for the US to return to an isolationist stance. Good luck with that. And with all the talk of the new min wage laws, I have yet to see / hear anyone talk about increasing wages of those already just above min wage to compensate. So we either are expecting all workers skilled and unskilled to work for the same wages or we need to get ready for the trickle up inflation that will follow across the board wage increases. And since we now all will earn more we will see more of our wages, for those few remaining jobs, go towards Uncle Barracks tax increase.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moses was a union representative, way back in ancient Egypt.

 

If we don't have union representation we get ruled by the government, which means union lobbyist's and ALEC, will negotiate contract laws. Moses parted the red sea, according to the Bible, but what do you really think. Do you think God helped him part the red sea, and what else did God help Moses with. What about the 10 commandments?

 

Fox News doesn't like Moses, and gets a Preacher to side with them.

 

https://youtu.be/ACf4eHht-a4

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

In many cases the union is the defacto employer. You want to work at a union job with company A, then you must join the union. Whatever laws apply towards the company should also apply towards the union. If the union allows illegals in then that would mean the company could not use their union shop employees without getting in trouble. So as the employer that has a union contract, it would seem to me to. E an affirmative defense for them to just say the union sent me an illegal, how was I to know they were breaking the law. Unions can't have it both ways.

 

As to unions in general, I think they have served their purpose. In today's world economy unions will push up wages but that will cost the US jobs. Until the world's wage market stabilizes everywhere, we will continue to see jobs leave the US especially I f they are labor intensive. That is just a basic fact. The only thing that will stop that is for the US to return to an isolationist stance. Good luck with that. And with all the talk of the new min wage laws, I have yet to see / hear anyone talk about increasing wages of those already just above min wage to compensate. So we either are expecting all workers skilled and unskilled to work for the same wages or we need to get ready for the trickle up inflation that will follow across the board wage increases. And since we now all will earn more we will see more of our wages, for those few remaining jobs, go towards Uncle Barracks tax increase.

A very practical perspective that again states that unions no longer have a purpose in this country and offer no value.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but by God, Moses had better come back, ABR!

 

How do you think the American people are going to look, in a few more years of no representation?

 

You don't like government unless it negotiates with ALEC, to make you some laws, behind closed doors.

 

You don't like American workers to be represented by their own union's,

 

Now, you might like martial law, if the guns, and artillery, is on your side.

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently half-way through my MBA program with a concentration in Human Resource Management. A classmate's husband was recently hired in a company with a union. He has no choice but to be in the union and is required to pay a $400 initiation fee. That's ridiculous.

 

The UAW constitution requires its international leadership (president, vice-presidents, secretary-treasurer, and board members) to receive an annual payment of up to 3% of profit sharing dues. The profit sharing dues are 1.15% of the profit sharing check UAW members receive. 2015 profit sharing checks employees received from Ford was $6,900; from Chrysler $2,750; and from GM $9,000. UAW international leaders each will receive checks up to $304,584 for their cut in profit sharing. This is on top of their six-figure salaries. That disparity between the lowest paid UAW member and the international leaders grows even larger.

The bolded above is a lie and you know it !!!!

 

Further more all of the Southern states are right to work states and no one is required to join a Union here, or pay imitation fees as a condition of employment . if this is what you are learning about the work environment in the South then you are getting a failing grade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bolded above is a lie and you know it !!!!

 

Further more all of the Southern states are right to work states and no one is required to join a Union here, or pay imitation fees as a condition of employment . if this is what you are learning about the work environment in the South then you are getting a failing grade.

 

 

Look, WHITEY, EZ is a Federalist!

 

His federation is to wipe out labor unions, even in the North.

 

I need not say anymore than that, to you, because you know the rest of the story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Your last paragraph is exactly what burned both my dad and Father in law, both UAW plant workers, to the core. That and the cheese for brains foreman they had over them are the reasons neither really support unions anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your last paragraph is exactly what burned both my dad and Fathered in law, both UAW plant workers, to the core. That and the cheese for brains foreman they had over them are the reasons neither really support unions anymore.

 

 

What do they think about the armed guards, down in Savannah, GA, kicking out reporters from their own hotel room, because of private negotiations, in a meeting room, between ALEC and Georgia law makers?

Edited by The Postman
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What do they think about the armed guards, down in Savannah, GA, kicking out reporters from their own hotel room, because of private negotiations, in a meeting room, between ALEC and Georgia law makers?

Haven't a clue... I have been nonstop grass cutting and I do not know what you are talking about and I have not had a chance to sit down with either of them for longer than about 20 min. I do know my dad wants me to edge his driveway for him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't a clue... I have been nonstop grass cutting and I do not know what you are talking about and I have not had a chance to sit down with either of them for longer than about 20 min. I do know my dad wants me to edge his driveway for him.

 

 

Ask your dad about it, Mr. Dis! I'm sure he has seen the report. So take a minute while you are over there edging.

 

Representation was seriously lacking, for GA tax payers, that evening, when the camera men got kicked out of their rooms by the armed guards.

Edited by The Postman
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...