# Trade unions and matters related to unions everywhere



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since BigDL is in the process of changing the name of his union thread to "Eh! You're The Troll! No, YOU'RE The Troll, Eh! The Canadian Edition" I am setting up a new union discussion thread. 

All union discussions are welcome, for, against or neutral. I am not requesting the discussion be limited to Canada.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Some people think unions and communism are a lot alike.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Unions are a job killing parasite. They reward laziness, protect the inept, destroy productivity, and put hard working entrepreneurs out of business.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

My personal hostility towards unions is primarily from having worked several union jobs. I'll take the word and actions of a corporation over that of a union any day of the week. Unions reward laziness, institutionalize inefficiency, kill profitability, and force people to join against their will. They turn the employee-management relationship into one that is adversarial, when they should see each other as part of the same team with the same goals. 


I particularly dislike public sector unions. Because governments can't just shut down if they can't afford operational costs, unions are actually holding the taxpayers hostage with each negotiation. People who don't make as much money as the govt. employees are expected to dig into their pockets to pay for the demands of people who are already better off. It's robbery.*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> My personal hostility towards unions is primarily from having worked several union jobs. I'll take the word and actions of a corporation over that of a union any day of the week. Unions reward laziness, institutionalize inefficiency, kill profitability, and force people to join against their will. They turn the employee-management relationship into one that is adversarial, when they should see each other as part of the same team with the same goals.
> 
> 
> I particularly dislike public sector unions. Because governments can't just shut down if they can't afford operational costs, unions are actually holding the taxpayers hostage with each negotiation. People who don't make as much money as the govt. employees are expected to dig into their pockets to pay for the demands of people who are already better off. It's robbery.*


What's surprising is that the public sector workers don't seem to see this. There's a weird assumption that the taxpayers are supporting them. The sense of entitlement from City of Toronto employees is incredible.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I hear they might have found a cure for cancer, live human testing stage will start soon. 
Maybe be they can find a cure for unions soon. 
They both have one thing in common, kill the host to survive.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

You actually started a new thread for this?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's for the the true, sanctity of reason, and thought. :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

gwillikers said:


> You actually started a new thread for this?


Yes, but it's not trolling!


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

I've read this thread somewhere before.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> I've read this thread somewhere before.


It was changed to a thread about trolling.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)




----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

.
.
.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> It was changed to a thread about trolling.


Aren't they all?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Aren't they all?


:lmao:

They are now in this rudderless ship called ehMac.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

More control or less control and what kind of controls?

Some like the their cyber a little on the wild side.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Aren't they all?


Pretty much at this point. All you need to do is disagree and someone plays the "you're trolling" card.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

I've never met a forum I didn't like...and they're all alike.

Stagnation and repetition is poison to any group.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> I've never met a forum I didn't like...and they're all alike.
> 
> Stagnation and repetition is poison to any group.


That's why nobody laughed at those ancient "beating a dead horse" gags.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kosh said:


> .
> .
> .


+1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Almost nobody.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> That's why nobody laughed at those ancient "beating a dead horse" gags.


This is the source of it all.

Like the silliness of the "Lights out..." thread, if a guy leaves after thousands of posts, maybe it has more to do with being bored of the repetition than anything else. Whether it be the Internet, work, relationships there's a problem with people getting in "ruts". Injecting new often means removing old.

Having said that the same people who are stuck and complaining about it resist change which may be the temporary relief needed before the cycle repeats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Having said that the same people who are stuck and complaining about it resist change which may be the temporary relief needed before the cycle repeats.


I agree. I don't even understand the point of cluck-clucking about EhMac as though it's on deathwatch. Stay or go. Do whatever you need to do in your life to prevent a simple forum from becoming so important to you. Be happy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> This is the source of it all.
> 
> Like the silliness of the "Lights out..." thread, if a guy leaves after thousands of posts, maybe it has more to do with being bored of the repetition than anything else. Whether it be the Internet, work, relationships there's a problem with people getting in "ruts". Injecting new often means removing old.


They can always remove themselves, can't they?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> They can always remove themselves, can't they?


This is why I wonder why I hear all of the pi**ing and moaning here about EhMac. I understand that there's another Apple bulletin board elsewhere that is actively moderated. Why not go there instead of embarrass themselves here with sackcloth, ashes, wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Nobody is turning out the lights at EhMac, because I have no intention of leaving.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Free to choose after Walker reforms, thousands of Wisconsin workers abandon government unions



> ...union membership has declined by 50% or more at some unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 48, which represents Milwaukee city and county workers. It has gone from more than 9,000 members and income exceeding $7 million in 2010 to about 3,500 members and a deep deficit by the end of last year.


Serious question, especially to union supporters: If unions are the be all & end all, why the massive exodus?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I am not an union member, but i am sure someone will be protected for this f up..
caused a massive traffic..Once again an union can do no wrong..


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

So how exactly is this a union issue?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Free to choose after Walker reforms, thousands of Wisconsin workers abandon government unions
> 
> Serious question, especially to union supporters: If unions are the be all & end all, why the massive exodus?





> Wisconsin's public employees are leaving their unions in droves, which should be no surprise: With passage of Act 10 in 2011, public unions in the Badger State lost many of their reasons for being.
> 
> The "budget-repair bill" pushed through the Legislature by Republicans and signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker limited bargaining to wages only, and then only up to the cost of living; it also required unions to recertify each year and barred the automatic collection of union dues.


Because they are being gutted and their bargaining ability stripped, that's why. 

A better article will be an interview a year from now with one of the workers who left.

Ask questions like, is your life better now? Are you earning more or at least the same? How are your benefits? How well are you being treated by your employer? Are health and safety concerns being addressed in a meaningful way? etc. etc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Because they are being gutted and their bargaining ability stripped, that's why.
> 
> A better article will be an interview a year from now with one of the workers who left.
> 
> Ask questions like, is your life better now? Are you earning more or at least the same? How are your benefits? How well are you being treated by your employer? Are health and safety concerns being addressed in a meaningful way? etc. etc.


It seems they're more concerned with the health safety and massive profits of the corporations. What needs to be protected here is not worker's rights, but the rights of the corporation to spend ridiculously and lavishly and squeeze the workers livelihoods. 

Corporations have been slowly training people to believe they don't deserve a decent living wage and benefits, and actually have people actively defending them on this. It's rather astounding actually. And some of these people actually claim to be fighting for... freedom :lmao:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> It seems they're more concerned with the health safety and massive profits of the corporations. What needs to be protected here is not worker's rights, but the rights of the corporation to spend ridiculously and lavishly and squeeze the workers livelihoods.
> 
> Corporations have been slowly training people to believe they don't deserve a decent living wage and benefits, and actually have people actively defending them on this. It's rather astounding actually. And some of these people actually claim to be fighting for... freedom :lmao:


You have the freedom to be paid as little as possible and to defend it vehemently.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> You have the freedom to be paid as little as possible and to defend it vehemently.


I stand corrected. You're right!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> Ask questions like, is your life better now? Are you earning more or at least the same?


jimmy, you're a comedian! Of course their pay and benefits are not the same! Those union members once feasted like parasites on Wisconsin taxpayers. Thankfully, the host is recovering.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> jimmy, you're a comedian! Of course their pay and benefits are not the same! Those union members once feasted like parasites on Wisconsin taxpayers. Thankfully, the host is recovering.


A. It's mrjimmy, and
B. Feasting like parasites? Pretty inflammatory language there. Doesn't seem conducive to a good discussion and therefore must be violating the terms of use.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> A. It's mrjimmy, and
> B. Feasting like parasites? Pretty inflammatory language there. Doesn't seem conducive to a good discussion and therefore must be violating the terms of use.


My sincere apologies to any Wisconsin public union members here on EhMac!


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

There seems to be a misconception that a business being unionized automatically means higher wages. That is not a given either.


I mentioned earlier that I have worked for several unionized companies. At one of those, the company was unionized while I was working there. The union (a very big one with over 200,000 members) was giving us all the same lines you always hear unions give about how they can bring us hyperbolic increases in wages, benefits, and job conditions. At the time, I should have realized that the company could never afford such things, but I was a young, naive liberal who believed the ideals the unions was selling.


The end result was some serious fiscal slight of hand by the union. One one side, they were able to truthfully say that the hourly wage did increase (albeit far less than the amount they PROMISED to get us to sign on). The part they didn't want to talk about though was how the rest of our compensation package (uniform allowances, shift premiums, etc) went down, AND we now had to pay union dues. The bottom line was our take-home pay went down, not up.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

heavyall said:


> There seems to be a misconception that a business being unionized automatically means higher wages. That is not a given either.
> 
> 
> I mentioned earlier that I have worked for several unionized companies. At one of those, the company was unionized while I was working there. The union (a very big one with over 200,000 members) was giving us all the same lines you always hear unions give about how they can bring us hyperbolic increases in wages, benefits, and job conditions. At the time, I should have realized that the company could never afford such things, but I was a young, naive liberal who believed the ideals the unions was selling.
> ...


I can see that happening. I've also seen the opposite where a union brought in significant wage increases as well as a benefits package where before there wasn't one. 

Like everything, it depends on your experience.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Because they are being gutted and their bargaining ability stripped, that's why.
> 
> A better article will be an interview a year from now with one of the workers who left.
> 
> Ask questions like, is your life better now? Are you earning more or at least the same? How are your benefits? How well are you being treated by your employer? Are health and safety concerns being addressed in a meaningful way? etc. etc.


So, people are leaving unions because they're being restricted to cost of living increases? How is leaving the union going to change that? And how is leaving the union going to change recertification practices or how dues are being collected?

Sorry, this doesn't follow.

As to health & safety practices, this one I don't know. In Canada we have Occupational Health & Safety. Unionized shop or not, businesses are subject to OHS overview and any employee can make a complaint. Does the US not have something similar?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Unionized shop or not, businesses are subject to OHS overview and any employee can make a complaint. Does the US not have something similar?


Even more than we do. They have a federal safety body called OSHA, in addition to the state safety associations.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> So, people are leaving unions because they're being restricted to cost of living increases? How is leaving the union going to change that? And how is leaving the union going to change recertification practices or how dues are being collected?
> 
> Sorry, this doesn't follow.
> 
> As to health & safety practices, this one I don't know. In Canada we have Occupational Health & Safety. Unionized shop or not, businesses are subject to OHS overview and any employee can make a complaint. Does the US not have something similar?


Wages only - no benefits. A big deal in the US. The union as a negotiator was stripped of it's power. Perhaps they sought greener pastures elsewhere although the article doesn't address that. That's why I wrote:

A better article will be an interview a year from now with one of the workers who left.

Ask questions like, is your life better now? Are you earning more or at least the same? How are your benefits? How well are you being treated by your employer? Are health and safety concerns being addressed in a meaningful way? etc. etc.

This will address the spin of workers leaving unions as though they are no longer necessary. Lets see the real reasons. Lets see life with and without compared. That would be a very telling article. Until then, we have spin.

As far as OH&S, they typically are brought in on a reactive basis. Unions deal with H&S issues proactively, not when someone has been killed due to negligence. 

Big difference.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> As far as OH&S, they typically are brought in on a reactive basis. Unions deal with H&S issues proactively, not when someone has been killed due to negligence.
> 
> Big difference.


Oh, horse feathers.

If I was working for a factory (or anywhere else, for that matter) & there is a health or safety issue, I can call up OHS & I can get an immediate response. No one needs to die before they'll show.

You accuse me of hyperbole...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Wages only - no benefits. A big deal in the US.


Once again, how does leaving the union change this? It makes sense to me that in order to get your union to change things, you stick with them, support them, hell, pressure them, not abandon them en masse.



mrjimmy said:


> This will address the spin of workers leaving unions as though they are no longer necessary. Lets see the real reasons. Lets see life with and without compared. That would be a very telling article. Until then, we have spin.


No one is spinning anything as "no longer necessary". The article merely gave facts about the numbers of people leaving unions & I asked why people thought this was happening.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> jimmy, you're a comedian! Of course their pay and benefits are not the same! Those union members once feasted like parasites on Wisconsin taxpayers. Thankfully, the host is recovering.


I find it difficult to overlook the connection between subjects...

Isn't all of humanity feasting like a parasite to some degree? Do any of us give back more than we take?

These conversations, while great time fillers, loop endlessly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> I find it difficult to overlook the connection between subjects...
> 
> Isn't all of humanity feasting like a parasite to some degree? Do any of us give back more than we take?
> 
> These conversations, while great time fillers, loop endlessly.


We need to give back about the same. When people are impoverished by their civil "servants," there is an imbalance.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> We need to give back about the same.


The private sector gives back about the same? What happened in the US in 2008? Did civil servants alone create that crash? How much was lost at that one time? Isn't that event just one example of greed that can be found everywhere? If you get rid of the unions then you might as well prepare for the same discussion involving a different group that does the same thing.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Time to get real. I think Bill Burr has the best solution to the current mess this planet is in:

The first minute and a half sums it up. WATCH OUT FOR PROFANITY!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iGm4dl0Ys4[/ame]


Of course, volunteers (myself included) would be hard to find.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> The private sector gives back about the same? What happened in the US in 2008? Did civil servants alone create that crash? How much was lost at that one time? Isn't that event just one example of greed that can be found everywhere? If you get rid of the unions then you might as well prepare for the same discussion involving a different group that does the same thing.


The crash was government engineered--though not deliberately. I write that one off to incompetence. However, this is the union thread.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> The crash was government engineered--though not deliberately. I write that one off to incompetence. However, this is the union thread.


Union or not. You're just talking labels. Human nature is the same across the board. Honesty and other qualities do not improve or diminish with labels. This has been proven through-out time.

Eg: Rome didn't collapse due to unions.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Union or not. You're just talking labels. Human nature is the same across the board. Honesty and other qualities do not improve or diminish with labels. This has been proven through-out time.


Just because there are other forms of corruption, doesn't mean union criminals should get a pass. Extortion usually does come from someone claiming to be "protecting" you. 

Governments that raise taxes "for your own good" are not much different either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Union or not. You're just talking labels. Human nature is the same across the board. Honesty and other qualities do not improve or diminish with labels. This has been proven through-out time.
> 
> Eg: Rome didn't collapse due to unions.


As if though labels are meaningless--and they most certainly are not. However, if you want to muse upon the gestalt of human existence, and the death of the Roman Empire, I can't help you out here.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> As if though labels are meaningless--and they most certainly are not. However, if you want to muse upon the gestalt of human existence, and the death of the Roman Empire, I can't help you out here.


You can't help with unions either. If you could you'd present a solution. Anybody can't talk endlessly about the problem but seldom does anybody ever present a remotely sensible solution without resorting to overly simplistic ideas that can mean something different to everyone that hears.

Point is, unions are only one manifestation of all problems that exist everywhere. The "problems" have always been and always will be in one form or another as long as humans exist. 

You can nitpick all life long, and you just might, and nothing gets better in general.

The only time something appears "better" is when someone gets their way. When it works out for their own best interests, their agenda (and everybody has an agenda) then it's perceived good. Otherwise nothing is truly better for us all at any one time. Hence the neverending bickering about all the "problems" in the world.

Carry on...and on...and on....

And if it's what you feel compelled to do then why not? What else will people fill their time with? Read a book, wash some clothes, cure cancer, discuss unions, and in the end - nothing but another cycle.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry, I don't buy the endless weary cycle mantra. It's all very interesting to me.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Sorry, I don't buy the endless weary cycle mantra. It's all very interesting to me.


What does "interesting" have to do with futile?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> What does "interesting" have to do with futile?


Nothing. I'm not interested in the futile.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

How about minutia? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> How about minutia? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


Yes!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It's not important to me that unions exist. What is important is their decline and their power decline as well. I see that as a very good thing as they are no longer needed.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I see that as a very good thing as they are no longer needed.


I agree whole heartedly that it would be a good thing if unions were no longer needed. I don't agree with the Pollyanna view that they _are_ no longer needed, but I look forward to the day that SINC is right.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> You can't help with unions either. If you could you'd present a solution. Anybody can't talk endlessly about the problem but seldom does anybody ever present a remotely sensible solution without resorting to overly simplistic ideas that can mean something different to everyone that hears.
> 
> Point is, unions are only one manifestation of all problems that exist everywhere. The "problems" have always been and always will be in one form or another as long as humans exist.


Many people have presented very workable solutions to the union problem. In some places the changes have resulted in very positive improvements in the local economy, as well as the daily lives of workers.

The most important change, that really should be implemented everywhere, is removing a union's ability to command mandatory membership in order to work at a given workplace. I'm applying to work for the _company_, not for the union. No organization should ever have the right to compel me to join and pay their dues.

Second, the level to which a union can control the decisions of the business owner needs to be scaled back considerably. At bare minimum, there needs to be a step _before_ bankruptcy where the owner can demonstrate that he can no longer afford to operate under the present conditions, and have the union decertified while it's still possible to save people's jobs.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Nothing. I'm not interested in the futile.


Then why are discussing unions?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

heavyall said:


> Many people have presented very workable solutions to the union problem. In some places the changes have resulted in very positive improvements in the local economy, as well as the daily lives of workers.
> 
> The most important change, that really should be implemented everywhere, is removing a union's ability to command mandatory membership in order to work at a given workplace. I'm applying to work for the _company_, not for the union. No organization should ever have the right to compel me to join and pay their dues.
> 
> Second, the level to which a union can control the decisions of the business owner needs to be scaled make considerably. At bare minimum, there needs to be a step _before_ bankruptcy where the owner can demonstrate that he can no longer afford to operate under the present conditions, and have the union decertified while it's still possible to save people's jobs.


Of course, the solution at last.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> At bare minimum, there needs to be a step _before_ bankruptcy where the owner can demonstrate that he can no longer afford to operate under the present conditions, and have the union decertified while it's still possible to save people's jobs.


Absolutely. Too many unions are willing to sink the business if their demands are not met.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Too many unions are willing to sink the business if their demands are not met.


When unions go this far, and they have done so often, it clearly demonstrates that the fat cats who run unions are all about power and dues collection and not about the very livelyhood of their members.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

They *are* politicians after all.

Enough said.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

*Terms of reference*

Anyone aware of the difference between a trade (or craft) union and an industrial union? It's an important distinction - look it up. I'll wait.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Let me guess, one requires significant skill and training, and the other doesn't?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gerbill said:


> Anyone aware of the difference between a trade (or craft) union and an industrial union? It's an important distinction - look it up. I'll wait.


Sure, but the distinction seems to mean very little these days. When the CAW represents people in the fisheries, what's the point? There are still pipefitter and electrical worker trade unions of course.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sadly both types of unions have the same tactics aimed at destroying companies. Never did understand how trying to destroy your employer helps your cause.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Sad face: Michigan unions lose their right-to-work court challenge



> Last winter, the state of Michigan officially became the country’s 24th right-to-work state — it was a bold move for a state with so much manufacturing and so many sizable union interests on the line, and Big Labor was not at all pleased about the whole thing. They raised quite the ruckus over it at the time, and they have since been trying to challenge the state’s right to implement the change in court.


Kiss mandatory union membership in Michigan goodbye...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Great news for Michigan!

A nice paragraph from the article:



> At the time, President Obama pandered/complained that the Michigan legislature’s push for right-to-work had “nothing to do with economics,” and would only succeed in helping to foster “a race to the bottom” — *except that union clout is one of the major factors that pushed the city of Detroit into bankruptcy and helped the nation to realize what a “race to the bottom” really looks like.*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, life as it should be. Choice! :clap:


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Right to work legislation stemmed from closed shop labour practices which, really, had little to do with paying union dues and more having to do with restrictive labour, graft, and collusion .... But it will not be a saving grace for industry and I strongly hope that RTW never enters Ontario ( hope you are listening Mr. Who-dat ). Any state that embraced this legislation eventually dropped minimum wages under the banner of RTW. Choose wisely what you wish for as you might just get it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fine to assume that might happen, but consider the unions effect in inflating wages far beyond the support level capability of employers. Windsor and Detroit are both excellent examples of such union activity that killed the auto industry. Not much wisdom shown on the union's part at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Any state that embraced this legislation eventually dropped minimum wages under the banner of RTW.


All U.S. states have minimum wage rates.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Sinc I've worked in the auto industry for over 30 years and it wasn't the unions but incompetent management.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Sinc I've worked in the auto industry for over 30 years and it wasn't the unions but incompetent management.


It seems the auto companies want everyone to believe it's the unions who are bringing their industry down, but the real truth is, those cash hungry execs just want more and more money to mismanage and spend lavishly. They're running out of cash to mismanage, so they want the money paid in wages and benefits!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Sinc I've worked in the auto industry for over 30 years and it wasn't the unions but incompetent management.


Yes. Management should never have given into union demands until the biggest "business" of GM was managing pensions and benefits, not building cars.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Rps said:


> Sinc I've worked in the auto industry for over 30 years and it wasn't the unions but incompetent management.


That's not popular opinion:

Unions destroyed U.S. Auto Industry - Grand Rapids Conservative | Examiner.com

Unions are Killing Michigan

Unions Continue to Kill U.S. Manufacturing : The Disciplined Investor


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Once you start digging and find out the typical Con-rag salary quotes include overtime, plus employers share of: SIN, Unemployment insurance, Workers Comp, health insurance... , the average assembly line worker has a real wage of just under $25/hour. Back in 1970 average minimum wage was in the $2.50/hour range. In the past forty+ years the price of most new cars has increased to almost 10x their 1970 counterpart.

IOW those factory crippling unions are making what would be just minimum wage, had minimum wage kept pace with inflation over the past 40 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Once you start digging and find out the typical Con-rag salary quotes include overtime, plus employers share of: SIN, Unemployment insurance, Workers Comp, health insurance... , the average assembly line worker has a real wage of just under $25/hour. Back in 1970 average minimum wage was in the $2.50/hour range. In the past forty+ years the price of most new cars has increased to almost 10x their 1970 counterpart.


I said wages _plus_ benefits. This doesn't change the argument.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This was a jaw-dropper...

Teachers Union Decertified in Wisconsin



> Teachers in Kenosha, Wisconsin - the third largest school district in the state -- have voted overwhelmingly to free themselves from the clutches of the teachers union, the Kenosha Education Association, which will now disband. Thanks to the reform bill, Act 10, pushed by Governor Scott Walker, public employee unions are limited to bargaining over base pay, and must be re-certified every year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

'Tis the way of the modern world. Dinosaur unions and their fat cat leaders will all but disappear.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm sure it's just a coincidence...

Ontario government workers call in sick more often than private sector



> Considering those employees were making on average 13.9% more per year in 2011 compared to similar employees in the private sector and 76% of them were covered by a registered pension plan as opposed to 26% of private-sector workers — according to a recent Fraser Institute report — I’d venture to suggest their entitlement is sickening.
> 
> “There’s definitely a culture that’s pervasive in these government offices that they use these sick days as an extra holiday leave,” Malcolm said,
> 
> She said public-sector workers often joke about how they catch “long-weekend-itis” — meaning they tack a sick day onto a Friday or Monday to give them an extra long weekend.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

I enjoyed the irony of one of the more militant union members explaining to me how they send their kids to private school, because private sector teachers are held accountable by the parents.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

vancouverdave said:


> I enjoyed the irony of one of the more militant union members explaining to me how they send their kids to private school, because private sector teachers are held accountable by the parents.


:lmao: Sounds about right... They can have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## margarok (Jan 16, 2009)

I was a union steward for a government contractor (no names, but the Primary contracting company name sounds a lot like Going and they primarily are in the aerospace industry ) and learned to loathe both union leadership AND corporate executives equally.

I did appreciate the representative at the National Labor Relations Board who championed my cause when I'd been suspended from work by the Vice President of ineptness and the Union Representative of the IAW local refused to fight it on my behalf.

I learned a lot about the laws, the union-corporate behind closed doors agreements, and how cowardly nice people get when they realize their livelihood depends on big fat ignorant union bosses who can let management do what they want if they won't play the game according to their unwritten rules.

It is anecdotal, but I think it happens a lot. They just did not count on my knowing a few politicians in D.C. who could help me get in touch with someone who could help.

Corrupt down here in Freedom and Liberty land, isn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

margarok said:


> Corrupt down here in Freedom and Liberty land, isn't it?


Union corruption is a free trade commodity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well if corruption will cause unions to cease to exist, what will become of governments? 

Sounds like some wishful thinking to me.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

‘Out of touch’ unionized public employees strike over 14.5 percent raise



> Taxpayers in Will County have offered its public employees a hefty pay raise and are willing to pick up 90 percent of the cost for their health insurance, but that’s not good enough for members of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 1028.
> 
> Its 1,300 members went on strike Monday, *decrying a “paltry” offer* from the county that would have given workers a 14.5 percent pay hike and have taxpayers pay for the overwhelming majority of their health insurance costs.


My bold.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> ‘Out of touch’ unionized public employees strike over 14.5 percent raise
> 
> 
> 
> My bold.


Talk about out of touch unions. Their useful days are done. Now it's all about union's pure greed. It's all they've got left to bargain with and that too will soon be rejected by wise employers and a funeral march held for all unions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> ...and a funeral march held for all unions.


...provided the musicians' union isn't striking for higher pay for drummers.


----------



## minstrel (Sep 9, 2002)

SINC said:


> Talk about out of touch unions. Their useful days are done. Now it's all about union's pure greed.


I can agree with the "out of touch" and "pure greed" parts as they apply to this particular local. I do disagree with the "useful days are done" bit. IMO, corporations are even more in need of a watchdog than ever. It would be nice to see some of the profits taken by large corporations shared with their workforce in the form of raises. However, government workers need to realize that the time is not right for such expectations.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

minstrel said:


> I can agree with the "out of touch" and "pure greed" parts as they apply to this particular local. I do disagree with the "useful days are done" bit. IMO, corporations are even more in need of a watchdog than ever. It would be nice to see some of the profits taken by large corporations shared with their workforce in the form of raises. However, government workers need to realize that the time is not right for such expectations.


A valid point. There are still some industries where the greatest good the union is able to do is to watch over the safety in the workplace issue. I also agree that in this case, this public service union was way out of line in terms of their expectations.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I also agree that in this case, this public service union was way out of line in terms of their expectations.


Break the backs of those scurvy rascals, eh Dr. G?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Break the backs of those scurvy rascals, eh Dr. G?


I am a pacifist, Macfury. I would rather just have some unions understand the realities of the day.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

minstrel said:


> I can agree with the "out of touch" and "pure greed" parts as they apply to this particular local. I do disagree with the "useful days are done" bit. IMO, corporations are even more in need of a watchdog than ever. It would be nice to see some of the profits taken by large corporations shared with their workforce in the form of raises. However, government workers need to realize that the time is not right for such expectations.


I too agree with you. Despite some locals not getting it, there are many many who do, and still a whole lot of greedy corporations that refuse to pay even a livable wage.

Tipping the balance too far either way isn't going to help anyone long term.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Corporations are not responsible for paying "livable wages" [sic]. They are responsible to pay people the amount for which they agreed to do a job. In the same way, consumers are not required to buy products at a price that sustains the corporation. If the value of their product declines to a point where the company can no longer function, the company exits the market.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Corporations are not responsible for paying "livable wages" [sic]. They are responsible to pay people the amount for which they agreed to do a job. In the same way, consumers are not required to buy products at a price that sustains the corporation. If the value of their product declines to a point where the company can no longer function, the company exits the market.


Some locals are not getting it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Corporations are not responsible for paying "livable wages" [sic]. They are responsible to pay people the amount for which they agreed to do a job. In the same way, consumers are not required to buy products at a price that sustains the corporation. If the value of their product declines to a point where the company can no longer function, the company exits the market.


The irony herein lies in the fact that for someone who is so against the precepts of free enterprise and capitalism earns his living in that very fashion. You'd think that, being a businessman, he'd be a bit clearer on the concepts...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Me, me, me!!! It's all about me!!!

Tail Wags Dog: A Union Just Voted To Kill A 40-Year Old Company and 5,500 Jobs



> Nearly a year after unionized school bus drivers in New York City went out on strike over the city’s plan to put its school bus routes out to competitive bidding, one of the nation’s largest school bus companies has announced it is closing its doors after union members voted to reject a contract that would have kept the company in business.


From the link inside:



> "We are very disappointed with the outcome of the union vote. Our goal was two-fold: to enable Atlantic Express to continue our operations in a competitive and financially stable structure to ensure we continued our leadership in the school bus industry while preserving jobs and our company," said Ms. Daly.
> 
> *"We gave the union our best offer, which was significantly better than what the new companies in the industry are providing. Without this labor contract, we have no choice left but to proceed with the sale of the all of the company's assets and contracts," she added.*


My bold.

I'm willing to bet there are tens of thousands of unemployed in New York city who would be tickled pink to have those jobs, at any pay rate...

The good news is they can all dial up Bloomberg (1-800-NANNYSTATE) & get personal handouts in time for Christmas, right?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Me, me, me!!! It's all about me!!!
> 
> Tail Wags Dog: A Union Just Voted To Kill A 40-Year Old Company and 5,500 Jobs
> 
> ...


Yep, union mentality. Ain't it wonderful?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Boeing machinists reject “best and final” labor deal for 777X



> Boeing Co. said the machinists union in Washington has rejected a “best and final” contract proposal that would ensure the aerospace giant would build its next-generation 777X airliner in the state.


Further:



> Obviously, Boeing has been working in the background exploring other options while the negotiations proceeded. *They put out a call for offers from other, more employment friendly states, and have thus far received proposals from 22 of them.* They report that some of the states have included multiple locations in their offers. (Even California tried to get in on the action.)
> 
> *And who wouldn’t?* You’re talking about thousands of direct employment jobs to set up and operate a plant to construct these giant aircraft. And that doesn’t count the multiplier effect, where an even larger number of jobs will be created to support the operation.


Bold mine.

31,000 direct jobs on the line. Thousands of indirect jobs. Whaddya s'pose that does to an economy the size of Seattle?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Boeing machinists reject “best and final” labor deal for 777X
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just one more demonstration of the mental midget members than are today's unions.


----------



## minstrel (Sep 9, 2002)

Wow! All union members are "mental midgets", eh? 

Thanks.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

minstrel said:


> Wow! All union members are "mental midgets", eh?
> 
> Thanks.


Apparently! :lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Act 10 delivers a heavy blow to once-powerful player AFSCME



> In 2011, the year Act 10 was approved, the four councils that make up the state organization reported a combined income of $14.9 million. In 2012, the first full year that the law was in place, the revenue had dropped roughly 45 percent, to $8.3 million.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Act 10 delivers a heavy blow to once-powerful player AFSCME


Here's the silver lining:



> "And some have suggested that while unions have lost money, they won't need as much since they will no longer be engaging in the often-costly collective bargaining process that much of their funds used to be dedicated to. Instead, they will now be free to dedicate most of their money to political and policy advocacy."


That's almost endearing, it's so sad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The slow but steady demise of the very concept of unions continues. Too much power, graft and control at the heart of that demise.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Volkswagen workers reject UAW in huge blow to union



> After three days of voting by hourly wage workers at the Volkswagen final assembly plants in Chattanooga, Tennessee, employees at the plant elected on Friday not to join the union.
> 
> The final tally was 726 workers voting no while 612 voted yes, with 89 percent of the eligible workers casting ballots.


No sarcasm intended here, an honest question: If unions are the be all & end all, why are they being abandoned in droves?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

FeXL said:


> Volkswagen workers reject UAW in huge blow to union
> 
> 
> 
> No sarcasm intended here, an honest question: If unions are the be all & end all, why are they being abandoned in droves?


the work force has finally woken up and seen that unions do nothing but bleed your cheques and accomplish nothing.. 
All they do is threaten to strike and shut down the factories..
No wants a Detroit everywhere, bad for business.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Volkswagen workers reject UAW in huge blow to union
> 
> 
> 
> No sarcasm intended here, an honest question: If unions are the be all & end all, why are they being abandoned in droves?


Surely graft, corruption, greed, high dues, no democracy, closed shops, U.S. control and the like have nothing to do with it?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Volkswagen workers reject UAW in huge blow to union
> 
> No sarcasm intended here, an honest question: If unions are the be all & end all, why are they being abandoned in droves?





> One specific complaint involves Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, a Republican, and vocal critic of the UAW.
> 
> During the vote, Corker said he had been told by people close to Volkswagen that the German automaker would not bring production of a new vehicle to Chattanooga if workers rejected the union offer.
> 
> Despite Volkswagen executives denying future product plans would be tied to the union vote, many wonder if Corker's claim spooked workers into voting no.


Seems the answer is in the very article you posted. Intimidation and fear tactics. No big mystery there. Join the union and we'll cripple the plant. 

A good follow up article would be a comparison of conditions and compensation at a similar unionized and non unionized plant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> A good follow up article would be a comparison of conditions and compensation at a similar unionized and non unionized plant.


Unionized plant might look a little better before it closes.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Unionized plant might look a little better before it closes.


That's sad isn't it. 

Their only option is to work for less, as well as stripping them of their (mostly) meagre benefits while inflation keeps chugging along. The world is setting itself up to be an ugly place in 20 or so years.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Seems the answer is in the very article you posted. Intimidation and fear tactics. No big mystery there. Join the union and we'll cripple the plant.
> 
> A good follow up article would be a comparison of conditions and compensation at a similar unionized and non unionized plant.


The devil's in the details


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Seems the answer is in the very article you posted. Intimidation and fear tactics.


I read that but that's a double edged sword. Unions have been using the very same tactics for years.

Let's strip away the hyperbole from both sides. What are we left with? That's what I'm asking.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> The devil's in the details


The details is, if you don't have anything salient to add to the conversation, why bother at all?

Pumping up that post count with more CFP's?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> That's sad isn't it.
> 
> Their only option is to work for less, as well as stripping them of their (mostly) meagre benefits while inflation keeps chugging along. The world is setting itself up to be an ugly place in 20 or so years.


That's reality. North America is no longer a bubble of post-WWII manufacturing might. Everyone now has reliable infrastructure and shipping and North American labour is nothing special.

The unions rode that bubble for awhile and thought they were the horse.

Inflation isn't exactly chugging these days, though.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's reality. North America is no longer a bubble of post-WWII manufacturing might. Everyone now has reliable infrastructure and shipping and North American labour is nothing special.
> 
> The unions rode that bubble for awhile and thought they were the horse.
> 
> Inflation isn't exactly chugging these days, though.


Unions are always the answer in every case, and it seems you're having trouble with this concept.
But in this case, it looks like some threats were used. And you thought only unions did this? 

Is this the 'derangement syndrome' you spoke of?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

FeXL said:


> No sarcasm intended here, an honest question: If unions are the be all & end all, why are they being abandoned in droves?


Unions aren't the "be all & end all". They are a check on corporations leveraging their power to lower wages & bennifits. Not everyone has to be in a union, but having them around raises everyones wages.

p.s. in this case no one "abandoned" anything. They were never part of a union.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Are you completely daft? The company said they might close down. That wasn't a threat, it was a promise.



groovetube said:


> Unions are always the answer in every case, and it seems you're having trouble with this concept.
> But in this case, it looks like some threats were used. And you thought only unions did this?
> 
> Is this the 'derangement syndrome' you spoke of?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes they do tend to get a little ornery when they migh have to cut back on them bonuses and lavish lifestyles don't they.

In a current climate of squeezing the American worker to an unlivable wage, as I-rui says, unions are about the only thing workers have as a check to this. If a company can treat their workers well and pay them fairly without a union, that's not only great, but shows the influence unions have had. Despite their naysayers.

If one is reasonable one can see unions can be far from the ideal hing and aren't without their faults either. But let's face it, the tactics of companies over the years haven't been without major problems either. Solutions are t ideal and taking away completely one of the few checks workers have, is just stupid.

Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

i-rui said:


> Unions aren't the "be all & end all". They are a check on corporations leveraging their power to lower wages & bennifits. Not everyone has to be in a union, but having them around raises everyones wages.


And, subsequently, everyone's costs. I have no issues with fair wage for fair work. However, I don't think the floor sweeper at GM was worth the $50K/yr plus benefits he was getting. That's one example of many. And no, I don't think that a handful of over-priced janitors had much effect on the cost of a new car. It's the sum total of the complete union pandemic & the mindset that usually accompanies it.

In addition, the high wages can also move labour offshore. Sure, somebody got their union negotiated wage increase, but somebody else lost their job. What do we say to them? Good on ya for milking them while ya could, but, tough noogies?



i-rui said:


> p.s. in this case no one "abandoned" anything. They were never part of a union.


Agreed. They weren't. However, they didn't sign up for the union which is telling them "no thanks". This, along with many other examples on this thread of people either leaving or not signing up for unions is a very telling trend. 

Again, open question, hyperbole aside, what is this saying? Why the sea change?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Since they OWN the business, they have a right to do that. If you imagine that the purpose of a business is to provide for workers, you have it ass-backwards. It simply exposes your brand of armchair socialism.



groovetube said:


> Yes they do tend to get a little ornery when they migh have to cut back on them bonuses and lavish lifestyles don't they.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Solutions are t ideal and taking away completely one of the few checks workers have, is just stupid.


Because far too often this so-called "check" turns into "wholesale exploitation". The landscape is littered with the carcasses of "checked" businesses.



groovetube said:


> Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.


Me, neither.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Since they OWN the business, they have a right to do that. If you imagine that the purpose of a business is to provide for workers, you have it ass-backwards. It simply exposes your brand of armchair socialism.


So they can simply expoit the workers at will?

Perhaps in your world.

There's no question I think that unions have gone too far in some cases. But so have corporations! So your solution is to remove the only check we have?

It's far worse than having out of control unions in my opinion. There are many cases of workers being not interested in a union since they don't need one. That's great. But the notion you have that giving corporations full power to exploit people simply because, 'they own the company, is nuts. Sorry. It has little to do with socialism. You need to go refresh your understanding of socialism.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

FeXL said:


> Again, open question, hyperbole aside, what is this saying? Why the sea change?


From 2012, but I think this still answers the question succinctly.

Unions on decline in private sector - Canada - CBC News

Some more:

The Decline of Unions is Your Problem, Too | TIME.com

BTW, speaking of hyperbole...



> It's the sum total of the complete union pandemic & the mindset that usually accompanies it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I wouldn't "remove" unions as a "solution" to anything. Join a union if you want. 



groovetube said:


> So they can simply expoit the workers at will?
> 
> Perhaps in your world.
> 
> There's no question I think that unions have gone too far in some cases. But so have corporations! So your solution is to remove the only check we have?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

So then what are you complaining about?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> So then what are you complaining about?


The harm that they do. But stupidity should not be illegal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's too bad you couldn't snap your fingers, and make what you think is stupid illegal huh.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> it's too bad you couldn't snap your fingers, and make what you think is stupid illegal huh.


Oh groove you have said as much yourself on many occasions.

"There ought to be a law!", is an assertion that people make all the time.

But in this case MF didn't say that at all.



Macfury said:


> The harm that they do. But stupidity should *not* be illegal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's a little sarcasm screature. Macfury is whining about unions, but says little about exactly what his solutions to this great damage the unions are causing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who do you imagine could be called on to provide a "solution?" Nobody should interfere with the free association of individuals, even if they are driving companies out of business.



groovetube said:


> It's a little sarcasm screature. Macfury is whining about unions, but says little about exactly what his solutions to this great damage the unions are causing.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Big unions outspend Koch Bros 15 times over – where is the outrage?



> The Koch Brothers have “distorted democracy”, held a “war on climate”, built a vast network of “climate disinformation think tanks”, and we can apparently blame them for “congressional inaction“. But now (oh No) Greenpeace, DeSmog, Think Progress, Naomi Oreskes and fan-followers must be in meltdown, for it turns out there are 58 more powerful forces in US politics! Donations to US political parties were tallied from 1989 – 2012 by Open Secrets and the most powerful donors by far are the _unions._


Further:



> So fiscal issues are the same for all businesses, whether they compete in the free market or feed off the handouts? An entire side of the economy is invisible here: the idea that one type of business might want to hobble competitors through environmental rules that favor their product is not even on the radar. Or how about financial houses that might want the government to invent a spurious market in an invisible product and then make participation compulsory. The brokerage on a $2 trillion dollar market is pretty neat. Neither could there be scientists whose careers and junkets depend upon solving a scare which might not be so scary.
> 
> Big-government loving commentators hate the Koch’s.
> 
> *The collectivists need their enemies don’t they? Just as they need to invent messiahs.*


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

So, couple more on South Carolina UAW unions.

S.C. governor: Detroit 3 union plants not welcome



> South Carolina is glad to have non-union jobs from BMW, Michelin and Boeing, but don't expect any factories from Ford, General Motors, Chrysler or other companies with unionized workforces.
> 
> According to Gov. Nikki Haley, they're not welcome.
> 
> Haley said this week that she discourages companies from building new facilities in South Carolina if they are planning to bring a union with them.


And this. 

Despite the fact that union reps were allowed to lobby workers in the factory prior to the vote & anti-union reps were not allowed, they still whine, "foul".

UAW calls on NLRB to void defeat at Chattanooga VW plant, order new election



> One week after losing a bid to organize workers at a Chattanooga, Tenn., Volkswagen factory, the United Auto Workers called on the National Labor Relations Board to void the election results and order a new one.
> 
> In a filing Friday afternoon with the federal labor law enforcement agency, the UAW said the election was tainted by interference from state Republicans lawmakers, particularly U.S. Sen. Bob Corker. The Republicans had warned the employees that voting for a union was not in their best interests or the factory's.


Typical. It's always someone else's fault...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The saga continues.

Bob Corker: Now the Auto Union Wants to Muzzle Public Officials



> Picture an election where an entity is given nearly unfettered access to voters for two years and then is allowed to call for a surprise vote with only a few days' notice. Then imagine that the entity loses the vote and complains that "outside forces"—who happen to be community leaders—should not have been allowed to speak or share their point of view. While most Americans can contemplate such a scenario playing out in another country, this is what has been happening in Tennessee.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

SEIU membership, revenues plummet after state ends 'underhanded scheme'



> A Michigan branch of the powerful Service Employees International Union saw its membership and revenues plummet after the reversal of a measure that forced caregivers tending to friends or relatives to be members with their dues paid by those they cared for.
> 
> More than 44,000 home-based healthcare workers parted ways with SEIU Healthcare Michigan after learning they did not have to join the union or pay dues, according to reports the union filed with the U.S. Department of Labor. *Thousands of the employees were allegedly forced into the union under a plan the SEIU successfully lobbied for that classified even unpaid family members caring for their elderly parents as "home health care workers." Dues were then automatically collected from the care recipients' Medicare or Medicaid checks.*


Nice...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, the continuing good work that all unions do.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

More fine, outstanding labor relations...

‘Top Chef’ Host Padma Lakshmi And Crew Flambéed By Boston Teamsters



> The Teamsters picketers were already mad. By the time Top Chef host Padma Lakshmi’s car pulled up to the Steel & Rye restaurant in the picturesque New England town of Milton just outside Boston, one of them ran up to her car and screamed, “We’re gonna bash that pretty face in, you ****ing whore!”


Padma Lakshmi and ‘Top Chef’ crew find Teamsters' Local flavor bitter



> The picketers lobbed sexist, racist and homophobic slurs at the rest of the cast and crew for most of the day, the website reported, and when production wrapped, the “Top Chef” crew found that tires were slashed on 14 of their cars. Milton police confirmed that the union members were “threatening, heckling and harassing” but said no arrests were made. The union protest was confined to just that one day during “Top Chef’s” two-month shoot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Typical union mentality and another reason they should be outlawed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The ultimate irony...

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers



> Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.


And, it's not because collective bargaining would negate any wages below $15/hr, either.



> But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that *companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.*


M'bold.

Once again, where is the hue & the cry from the left?

Always, always, always, the modus operadi is "This is good enough for thee but not for me".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Labour's support for minimum wage has never been about the poor. They raise the price of unskilled labor to the point where it is no longer economically feasible to hire two or three unskilled workers for the price of a union worker.




FeXL said:


> The ultimate irony...
> 
> L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Amtrak Employees Claimed to Work 40 Hours Per Day



> Timesheets for employees of Amtrak are riddled with abuse, according to a recent audit report, with cases of workers claiming over 40 hours of work in a single day.
> 
> The audit released by Amtrak’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Thursday found examples of abuse in the overtime system, which totaled nearly $200 million in overtime pay last year.


How long do you s'pose this would have continued in a private, non-union enterprise?



> “However, our prior investigative work has shown instances in which employees have fraudulently reported hours not worked,” the OIG said. *“We believe that these trends and patterns merit further analysis and, if appropriate, action by management.”*


Ya think? 

Further:



> *One such trend was employees claiming the impossible feat of working 48 hours in a single day.*
> 
> “Employees reported 1,357 days in which they worked more than 24 regular and overtime hours,” the OIG said. “Ten employees reported working at least 40 hours in a day.”
> 
> ...


Nice work, if you can get a union to sponsor you for it.

More:



> The union agreements governing Amtrak and its employees are numerous and complicated, a matter alluded to by the OIG. The complexity arises from train employees belonging to different types of unions. *Overall, there are 14 unions with 23 different collective bargaining agreements*, each with their own rules for calculating employee time and pay.


M'bold.

Fire. Them. All.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Bring it!

Majority of Canadians support bill to force unions to disclose spending and salaries: poll



> Many legal experts hate it, pro-labour groups lambast it and the Senate manipulated its own rules to pass it, but Canadians overwhelmingly support a new union transparency bill, according to a new poll.
> 
> Nearly two thirds — 62 per cent — of Canadians approve of Bill C-377, legislation that requires unions to disclose expenses over $5,000 and salaries over $100,000, an exclusive Forum Research poll shows. Support remains high among self-identified union supporters: 59 per cent of them said they support more disclosure.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Bring it!
> 
> Majority of Canadians support bill to force unions to disclose spending and salaries: poll


This is a no brainier. Duh! Thank god Canadians are beginning to clue in and wake up.

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander... please excuse the extended metaphor.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Most corporations have good reason to whine where unions are concerned. For example, the loss of productivity for corporations due to union protection of unproductive employees, has taken a heavy toll over the years.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> Most corporations have good reason to whine where unions are concerned. For example, the loss of productivity for corporations due to union protection of unproductive employees, has taken a heavy toll over the years.


Failure of any given Union's leadership is no reason to oppose unionism _carte blanche_. Without unions to protect workers, productivity was gained by working people to death in unsafe conditions. There has to be a balance between the employer's need for productivity, and the worker's need to ...well, live!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Failure of any given Union's leadership is no reason to oppose unionism _carte blanche_. Without unions to protect workers, productivity was gained by working people to death in unsafe conditions. There has to be a balance between the employer's need for productivity, and the worker's need to ...well, live!


Got no problems with unions--but I do have a problem with unions given special status by the government.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Without unions to protect workers, productivity was gained by working people to death in unsafe conditions.


Yeah, in the 19th & early 20th centuries, maybe.

When was the last time you heard of anyone in the latter half of the 20th or any of the 21st century getting worked to death in the First World?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> When was the last time you heard of anyone in the latter half of the 20th or any of the 21st century getting worked to death in the First World?


*Regional Federal and State Fatality/Catastrophe Weekly Report Ending 
July 11, 2015 (FY 2015)*
​









(OSHA.gov)


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> Got no problems with unions--but I do have a problem with unions given special status by the government.


^THIS^.

They should always have had to fully disclose all expenses, they never should have been allowed to be involved in ANY activity that is not directly related to their employees relationship with their employers, membership should never have been allowed to be a requirement to work in a unionized shop, and there never should have been any tax breaks for either the union or the members.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Regional Federal and State Fatality/Catastrophe Weekly Report Ending July 11, 2015 (FY 2015)


Yeah? So how many of these deaths are from being "worked to death" (your words), as in overworked to the point of death? How many of these deaths are due to accidents from their own basic stupidity? How many of these deaths are actually caused by poor working conditions, improper tools, faulty equipment, things outside the realm of the workers' control?

You can't merely splash a handful of numbers across a page with no justification, explanation or frame of reference & call that an argument, CM. Assignment mark: Fail. To the back of the class, no PhD for you...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Yeah? So how many of these deaths are from being "worked to death" (your words), as in overworked to the point of death? How many of these deaths are due to accidents from their own basic stupidity? How many of these deaths are actually caused by poor working conditions, improper tools, faulty equipment, things outside the realm of the workers' control?


Of course there are outlying reasons for workplace fatalities. Sadly, I don't have at hand the "worked to death" report. I wonder if there is one...? I am surprised at the number of workplace deaths in such a short period of time... without the history of union efforts to improve workplace safety, what might those figures be?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Of course there are outlying reasons for workplace fatalities. Sadly, I don't have at hand the "worked to death" report. I wonder if there is one...? I am surprised at the number of workplace deaths in such a short period of time... without the history of union efforts to improve workplace safety, what might those figures be?


'bout 11 more.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Ah, yes, the much vaunted "Safety Meeting". Nobody works, nobody gets hurt...



CubaMark said:


> without the history of union efforts to improve workplace safety, what might those figures be?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Ah, yes, the much vaunted "Safety Meeting". Nobody works, nobody gets hurt...


Tailgate talks will cure it all!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*It may just be time to open up a can of Leviticus on these jerks....*

*Fort Frances-area Gingrich Woodcraft closes doors after workers vote to have union*

A furniture manufacturer in Devlin, near Fort Frances, Ont., has closed its doors for what it calls religious reasons. 

Gingrich Woodcraft said in a statement that, as Christian business owners, their personal beliefs do not allow them freedom to work with a labour union.

The company stated, "we are required by scripture to 'live peaceably with all men,' and not to use force to gain what we want or for what is required to succeed."

Earlier this month, 25 workers at the plant voted 69 per cent in favour of joining Unifor, the largest private sector union in the country.

Less than a week later, workers were told the plant was being permanently closed, putting all the employees out of work.​
(CBC)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I think it's fabulous.

Hopefully the owners will restructure & open again in a couple months under a new name with fresh non-union employees.

Good for them for standing up for what they believe is right. The benefits of owning your own business...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *It may just be time to open up a can of Leviticus on these jerks....*
> 
> *Fort Frances-area Gingrich Woodcraft closes doors after workers vote to have union*
> 
> ...


Yep, using force in the union way. "Gimme or we strike and shut you down."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I think it's fabulous.
> 
> Hopefully the owners will restructure & open again in a couple months under a new name with fresh non-union employees.
> 
> Good for them for standing up for what they believe is right. The benefits of owning your own business...


Amen to that. Good on these people for standing up to this claptrap. Unbelievable that anyone would blame the owners for this.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Oh, & CM, are you advocating violence as a solution?



CubaMark said:


> *It may just be time to open up a can of Leviticus on these jerks....*


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Oh, & CM, are you advocating violence as a solution?


You'll note that any union that strikes a company into bankruptcy gets no promise of a "can of Leviticus."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I wish I could say "you guys are unbelievable!", but sadly, this is true to course.

You dismiss out-of-hand any possibility that the employees at this business may have been working in unsafe conditions, had issues with being paid for their work, unreasonable hours, etc. You jump immediately to "Yeah! Dump those lazy slobs! Evil commie union bastards! Whooo-Hoo!!! 'murica."

The business owner doesn't even address whatever issues may have led the workers to unionize - he just goes directly to "God told me unions are bad" (say that last bit in the voice of Mr. Mackey from South Park).

The CBC's 'reporting' on this case leaves much to be desired. No exploration of the workers' grievances. I'll grant you legitimate CBC-bashing in this instance


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

No further details on the workplace conflict, but the Fort Frances Times notes:

_...the Devlin-based manufacturer abruptly called about 25 employees to a meeting yesterday afternoon and fired them without notice.

“It is almost inconceivable that in a country like Canada in 2015, we are dealing with an employer that is willing to take the position that the Constitution and Ontario labour laws somehow do not apply to employees of Mennonite-operated businesses in [Rainy River District],” said Boon.

“Despite the fact that several Mennonite operations across Canada are already unionized, Gingrich management has taken the shocking stance that their ‘faith’ requires employees either remain non-union, and therefore underpaid and exploited, or instead be fired,” he added.

“We often read about bully companies in Third World countries willing to crush union organizing drives to eliminate dissent and keep wages low,” Boon said.

“But these type of actions are almost unheard of in a modern, democratic country like Canada.”_​


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

If the working conditions were unsafe then Occupational Health & Safety, or whatever the hell they call it in Ontario, should have been contacted. That's the first line of defense. Not a union.

If they were not being paid what they thought they were worth, they could find a new job that pays them more. No union needed.

If they were not being paid for the work they performed, there are laws being broken & they have avenues to pursue. No union needed.

If the hours were unreasonable to the point of breaking provincial law, then that could also have been addressed through the proper channels. Once more, no union needed.

And, nobody said anything about lazy, commies or America, save you.

It's their right to join a union. It's also entirely his right to close shop. That's the true meaning of democracy...



CubaMark said:


> You dismiss out-of-hand any possibility that the employees at this business may have been working in unsafe conditions, had issues with being paid for their work, unreasonable hours, etc. You jump immediately to "Yeah! Dump those lazy slobs! Evil commie union bastards! Whooo-Hoo!!! 'murica."


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> It's their right to join a union. It's also entirely his right to close shop. That's the true meaning of democracy...


Uh, no. You have it rather wrong. If the business owner is specifically closing shop because the workers voted to form a union to represent their interests, the owner is in _violation of Ontario labour law_. I think Gingrich knows this, and is taking the religious exemption tack as an 'out', but I can't imagine he will succeed.

Nice, all the sympathy you folks aren't having for the 26 workers, their families and the economic repercussions for the local economy.

Note that Gingrich at no point in the news stories I've been able to find to date has indicated that his business is in any kind of economic dire straits. In fact, a trade magazine reported just last month that the company was expanding its warehouse area to be able to store larger quantities of wood product. Doesn't seem like this two-decade-old business was hurting...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Doesn't seem like this two-decade-old business was hurting...


But would it be if it had to meet the union demands? That is also an unanswered question that may very well be the case here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Boo-hoo. 

I wonder how they could face their families after realizing they destroyed their incomes by forming a union.



CubaMark said:


> Uh, no. You have it rather wrong. If the business owner is specifically closing shop because the workers voted to form a union to represent their interests, the owner is in _violation of Ontario labour law_. I think Gingrich knows this, and is taking the religious exemption tack as an 'out', but I can't imagine he will succeed.
> 
> Nice, all the sympathy you folks aren't having for the 26 workers, their families and the economic repercussions for the local economy.
> 
> Note that Gingrich at no point in the news stories I've been able to find to date has indicated that his business is in any kind of economic dire straits. In fact, a trade magazine reported just last month that the company was expanding its warehouse area to be able to store larger quantities of wood product. Doesn't seem like this two-decade-old business was hurting...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> If the business owner is specifically closing shop blah, blah, blah...


If, if, if. Jeezuz, Mark. You don't have the whole story &, by the sounds of it, neither does the CBC. However, sans any real details, you both have already castigated him as the "big meany".

It's his shop. He can open it or close it at his leisure. If the only way he can avoid crossing the law is to claim a religious exemption, so be it. It's been done many times before & will continue to do so. Turbaned RCMP officers, anyone?

You don't like it, by all means, change the law. Until then, live with it.

BTW, where are the tears for the thousands who have lost jobs in the Alberta oil industry, along with those repercussions? Or is your indignance reserved for only those who have run afoul of true democracy?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Even if the religious rationale is specious, I have to give him credit for finding a loophole. 

It's his business. If he doesn't want a union shop, that absolutely is his right, regardless of what any provincial labour law might try to say to the contrary. If I were in his boots, I'd do the same thing he did -- bring a union into MY business and you WILL lose you job.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

There will be an Ontario Labour Relations Board hearing on the matter Monday morning.



CBCNews said:


> The Ontario Labour Relations Board is looking into two complaints, filed by Unifor, against Fort Frances-area furniture manufacturer, Gingrich Woodcraft, which closed its doors for what it calls religious reasons after workers voted in favour of joining a union.
> 
> The union alleges the company has engaged in an unfair labour practice and has started an illegal lockout.
> 
> A spokesperson for the labour board said a hearing will take place Monday morning in Toronto.


Unifor files labour board complaints against northern Ontario furniture maker - Thunder Bay - CBC News


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> There will be an Ontario Labour Relations Board hearing on the matter Monday morning.
> 
> 
> 
> Unifor files labour board complaints against northern Ontario furniture maker - Thunder Bay - CBC News


They can't force them to sty in business, BigDL!


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

The gall of that union is unbelievable. Those employees are not indentured slaves. They are free to find another job if they don't like the conditions of this one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> The gall of that union is unbelievable. Those employees are not indentured slaves. They are free to find another job if they don't like the conditions of this one.


Their sense of entitlement is shocking. Can you imagine going home after pulling this boneheaded union stunt and explaining to your families that you killed your own job forever?

Even the idiots at the OLRB can't force the company to remain open.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> They can't force them to sty in business, BigDL!


Nor should they in a free society.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark, you are the most lazy ass researcher. Child labor in the US was battled on the state level by the National Child Labor Committee, a religious and philanthropic organization. The National Consumers League pushed hard for federal laws, and these were finally passed as the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. However, by that time children had largely been driven out of the workforce by the Depression, as adults took their jobs.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Hah! Who said I did any research? Quite the assumptions you like to make. 

[I should have cited the photographer and details of the photo: [_The Photographs of Lewis Hine: The Industrial Revolution and Child Laborers_: Fixing Bobbins / Bibb Mill No. 1, Macon, Ga. Many youngsters here. Some boys and girls were so small they had to climb up on to the spinning frame to mend broken threads and to put back the empty bobbins., 01/19/1909]

Yes, the NCLC did great work in pushing for improved labour laws as they pertained to children. And you correctly note that the Depression was one of the causes for adults to take up work children had previously occupied. *Mechanization* also displaced many of the roles that child workers occupied, since they tended to be the simpler tasks that were first modernized.

*Now, are you denying that labour unions had any role in the protection of child labourers?* Did the labour advocacy group that created the image & text posted above use some creative licence? Were the people involved in the NCLC union supporters, or members of unions themselves?

_...child labor declined in the early nineteenth century, but factory employment provided a new opportunity for children. Ultimately, young women and adult immigrants replaced these children in the textile industry, but child labor continued in other businesses. They could be paid lower wages, were more tractable and easily managed than adults, *and were very difficult for unions to organize*._ (History.com)​
_In the early decades of the twentieth century, the numbers of child laborers in the U.S. peaked. Child labor began to decline as the labor and reform movements grew and labor standards in general began improving, increasing the political power of working people and other social reformers to demand legislation regulating child labor. *Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined, and common initiatives were conducted by organizations led by working women and middle class consumers, such as state Consumers’ Leagues and Working Women’s Societies. These organizations generated the National Consumers’ League in 1899 and the National Child Labor Committee in 1904, which shared goals of challenging child labor, including through anti-sweatshop campaigns and labeling programs.* The National Child Labor Committee’s work to end child labor was combined with efforts to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and culminated in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which set federal standards for child labor._ 

* * *​
*1832 New England unions condemn child labor*
The New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Workingmen resolve that “Children should not be allowed to labor in the factories from morning till night, without any time for healthy recreation and mental culture,” for it “endangers their . . . well-being and health”

*1836 Early trade unions propose state minimum age laws*
Union members at the National Trades’ Union Convention make the first formal, public proposal recommending that states establish minimum ages for factory work

* * *​
*1876 Labor movement urges minimum age law*
Working Men’s Party proposes banning the employment of children under the age of 14

*1881 Newly formed AFL supports state minimum age laws*
The first national convention of the American Federation of Labor passes a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment

* * *​
*1892 Democrats adopt union recommendations*
Democratic Party adopts platform plank based on union recommendations to ban factory employment for children under 15
(University of Iowa)​
_*Unions Helped End Child Labor:* “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time._ (ThinkProgress)​
*So is it a Pavlovian thing for you? *Mention anything positive that the Unions did in the past, and you automatically launch into denial mode, since Unions are evil incarnate and surely couldn't have been good for anything, thus there must have been other people who _really_ did all the work and had the ideas and made the change. Is that about right, MF?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure they played a part. If anything they slowed things down. The single biggest reason that children were employed was because families could not make ends meet in any other fashion. Once industrialization occurred, productivity improved and the parents alone could support a family. Unions consistently opposed the introduction of labor-saving machinery, slowing down this trend.

Unions aren't so much evil as bumbling and wrong-headed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Sure they played a part. If anything they slowed things down. ..... Unions aren't so much evil as bumbling and wrong-headed.


*You are truly unbelievable.*  :yikes:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

While some union members were no doubt moved by decency, unions may have been motivated to increase the employment of adults to increase the number of union jobs. In the same way, the support of unions for higher minimum wages are one method of barring unskilled workers from entry level positions and creating a playing field more conducive to hiring union workers.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We always were sure to pay our non union staff higher than union scale. Once they joined a union, and there were only two of 165, they were worth less as productivity dropped accordingly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> We always were sure to pay our non union staff higher than union scale. Once they joined a union, and there were only two of 165, they were worth less as productivity dropped accordingly.


Union members were the steadiest workers I have met--in fact, they were so steady they were almost motionless.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Perfect...

Ontario paid $1-million to union for labour peace with high school teachers



> Ontario’s Liberal government paid $1-million directly to the province’s high school teachers’ union as part of a deal to defuse one of its most explosive labour disputes, a document obtained by The Globe and Mail reveals.
> 
> In addition, the government financed raises for teachers by diverting money from a fund for special programs that help struggling students graduate.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further on the above. 

First, it seems that now it was $2.5 million, not just $1 million. Second, a small, tiny piece of accountability seems to have never been issued.

Ontario did not seek receipts for $2.5-million paid to teachers’ unions



> Ontario’s Liberal government did not ask to see receipts for the expenses of three teachers’ unions before secretly paying them $2.5-million to cover their costs during contract talks.
> 
> Education Minister Liz Sandals admitted on Thursday that there are no itemized accounts of exactly what taxpayers’ money paid for. “You’re asking me if I have receipts and invoices. No, I don’t,”


Ya feel that, Ontario?

Further:



> Ms. Sandals also refused on Thursday to say how much the government paid teachers’ unions in contract talks in 2004, 2008 and 2012 to defray their expenses. *“I’m not sure that it is useful to go back and rake through the history,” she said.*
> 
> Premier Kathleen Wynne dodged questions on the subject in the daily Question Period.


M'bold.

Of course it isn't...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The latest update on the above? Over $7 million. Nice.

However, the denial continues...

Kelly McParland: Wynne Liberals can’t keep their excuses straight as bill for union payments grows



> The effort of Kathleen Wynne’s government to avoid acknowledging the impropriety of its relationship with the teachers’ unions would do credit to a rookie contestant on _Dancing with the Stars_. It twists, it turns, it ignores, it obfuscates. This is political denial as high art – the Cirque de Soleil has nothing on Ontario’s Liberals.
> 
> The performance is necessitated by several factors: the revelation that the Liberals paid millions of dollars to the unions while supposedly negotiating as adversaries; the secrecy surrounding the payments and the growing size as leaks continue; the inability of the government to get its excuses straight as ministers and the premier try out various, sometimes contradictory, explanations; and the reluctance of a government long in the tooth and mired in arrogance to admit to yet another expensive mistake.


Go Liberals!!!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Give 'em a raise!!! Throw more money at the problem!!!

Detroit Public Schools: 93% Not Proficient in Reading; 96% Not Proficient in Math



> Only 4 percent of Detroit public school eighth graders are proficient or better in math and only 7 percent in reading. This is despite the fact that in the 2011-2012 school year—the latest for which the Department of Education has reported the financial data—the Detroit public schools had “total expenditures” of $18,361 per student and “current expenditures” of $13,330 per student.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Give 'em a raise!!! Throw more money at the problem!!!
> 
> Detroit Public Schools: 93% Not Proficient in Reading; 96% Not Proficient in Math


How long have Democrats been in charge of that city again?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> How long have Democrats been in charge of that city again?


Since 1962.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

My tax dollars at work...

Public servants want paid days off to grieve 'spirit friends'



> The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) wants its members to be able to take paid grieving days for *“aboriginal spirit friends.”*
> 
> The Educational and Library Science group of the public servant union did not offer an explanation or definition of “aboriginal spirit friend,” but wants the term added to the list of family members workers can take days off to mourn.
> 
> *Gilles Benoit of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said he’s never heard the term before.*


M'bold.

Further:



> “They want 10 days off with pay if an imaginary friend dies,” CTF national director Greg Thomas said in a statement. “These people might as well be working at imaginary jobs.”


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

More:



> “Counting weekends, vacations, statutory holidays, sick days, family days and personal days, federal employees can already get between 150 and 165 days off every year with full pay,” Thomas said.


OK, ok. I can hear the screeching already, what with including weekends into the calculation. So, lets' take 104 days/year away from the final numbers: 46-61 days off, every year with full pay. 

Now, they want 10 more...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

This could just as easily be posted in the Anti-Progressive thread but it fits here as well.

Los Angeles union wants to be exempt from $15 minimum wage it fought for



> Union officials in Los Angeles are fighting to be excluded from minimum wage rules that they have lobbied to put in place.


Of course they are...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

From earlier this week.

Canada Post issues 72-hour lockout notice to union



> Canada Post workers are bracing to hit the picket lines as early as Friday after the corporation issued a 72-hour lockout notice on Tuesday.


Does anybody even care?

Pretty difficult for me to muster up any feelings of support for a gold-plated pension plan when, as a business owner, I don't have one of my own. That, & the state of the economy, period?

Nope.

Hope it's a long one...


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Not only does almost no one care, the union is shooting themselves in the head. An extended lockout or strike will only serve to accelerate the realization that Canada Post is nearing obsolescence in the digital age. If the disruption is more than a week, they are just digging their own graves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> Not only does almost no one care, the union is shooting themselves in the head. An extended lockout or strike will only serve to accelerate the realization that Canada Post is nearing obsolescence in the digital age. If the disruption is more than a week, they are just digging their own graves.


It will be rough on me if it goes on too long, because I receive much of my income through mail. But that just turns me further against the postal union. Following each strike, mail volume goes down as people find new and more efficient ways to avoid using Canada Post.

Was talking to a Canada Post guy a few months ago, bitching about how new employees won't get his gold-plated pension. I don't know who he thought he was talking to describing this gold-plated benefit as though everyone has it. Asked him why the union didn't offer home delivery three times a week in exchange for getting rid of community boxes. He says daily delivery is sacrosanct and they will fight it to the end. Just unbelievably short-sighted.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It will be rough on me if it goes on too long, because I receive much of my income through mail. But that just turns me further against the postal union. He says daily delivery is sacrosanct and they will fight it to the end. Just unbelievably short-sighted.


Yep, union mentality. All about us and protecting our ranks including their many slackers. We'll see how they feel about losing their jobs entirely, and they will if they persist.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

NLRB: Graduate Students at Private Universities May Unionize



> In a blow to private institutions and a boon to their graduate student employees, the National Labor Relations Board ruled Tuesday that graduate research and teaching assistants are entitled to collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.
> 
> Graduate student unions at public institutions are common, as students’ collective bargaining status on public campuses is governed by state law. But the NLRB oversees graduate student unions on private campuses. Tuesday’s decision in favor of a graduate student union bid at Columbia University effectively reverses an earlier NLRB ruling against a graduate student union at Brown University, which had been the law of the land since 2004. The decision also overturns a much longer-standing precedent against collective bargaining for externally funded research assistants in the sciences.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Smart pilots.

WestJet pilots vote against forming union - Business - CBC News


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Obama NLRB Wiped Out 4,500 Years of Legal Precedent



> President Barack Obama’s top labor arbiters have overturned a cumulative 4,500 years of legal precedent over the past eight years, according to a new study.
> 
> The National Labor Relations Board, an agency that oversees union elections and workplace disputes, has issued numerous new rules that changed longstanding agency practices, as well as issued decisions that overturned decades of precedent.
> 
> In all, the board has overturned 91 precedents, wiping out more than 4,000 years of case law—averaging more than 45 years per decision; the agency’s new election rules overturned a combined 454 years of protocol, according to a study from three labor attorneys at the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and Workplace Policy Institute.


More:



> Heather Greenaway, spokeswoman at the Workforce Fairness Institute, said that the NLRB has acted as a “rogue agency” during President Obama’s tenure.
> 
> *“The Obama-era NLRB will be remembered as an anti-jobs agency that rewarded Big Labor cronies by rolling back years of long-standing precedent,”* she said in a statement. “We are hopeful that the incoming administration will reverse the damage caused by the Obama’s labor board by … promoting stable bargaining and economic growth, while also unwinding the damaging and job-killing rules leveled by pro-union bureaucrats.”


M'bold.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Good.

SEIU Texas Declares Bankruptcy After Losing Millions to Company



> The Texas chapter of one of the nation’s most powerful unions filed for bankruptcy after losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit for its smear campaign against a Houston janitorial company.
> 
> A jury ordered Service Employees International Union Texas, also known as SEIU District Five, to pay Professional Janitorial Service of Houston $7.8 million in September for making false claims about the company during a campaign to rally support from workers and local activists.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further on the SEIU.

SEIU Budget Slashed by $90 Million over Union Fears of Trump



> The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is slashing its organizing budget by $90 million, in a sign that unions fear their message will not resonate during a Trump administration, according to Businessweek.
> 
> Breitbart News has reported extensively on the bare knuckles tactics of the SEIU-backed protests that eventually led to Los Angeles and many other large cities across the U.S. adopting some form of $15 minimum wage.
> 
> SEIU President Mary Kay Henry stated at the time: “Together, *we will continue to fight in the streets until greedy corporations and the politicians who favor them* over working people take steps to restore the chance for all American families to get ahead. We will not stop until all work is valued and every community has the chance to thrive.”


M'bold.

Say, wait just a gosh-darned minute...

What about greedy unions? :yikes:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Good.

Right to Work Spreads to New England



> New Hampshire could become the nation’s 28th right to work state after the GOP-controlled Senate passed a bill banning union membership as a condition of employment.
> 
> The right to work bill, which is modeled after legislation passed in more than half of states, prevailed by one vote in New Hampshire’s high chamber, 12-11, on a near-party line vote. If the bill passes the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, New Hampshire could become the first state in New England to adopt right to work.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have been awaiting the NDP to put a freeze on provincial union salaries so they too can share in rebuilding the economy of the province.

I think I will still be waiting on that decision until May of 2019 when the Dippers are soundly trounced from office.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I have been awaiting the NDP to put a freeze on provincial union salaries so they too can share in rebuilding the economy of the province.
> 
> I think I will still be waiting on that decision until May of 2019 when the Dippers are soundly trounced from office.


_Wahhhhhh_! Haven't public employees given enough already?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> _Wahhhhhh_! Haven't public employees given enough already?


Yeah. That 40% cutback under Klein was brutal...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Yeah. That 40% cutback under Klein was brutal...


They're carving it in tombstones I hear...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Government Workers Union Spent $20 Million More on Politics than Representing Members



> One of the nation's most influential labor unions spent $20 million more on politics than it did representing the interests of its members in 2016, according to its federal labor filing.
> 
> The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $55.3 million on "political activities and lobbying" in 2016 compared to the $36.4 million in expenditures related to "representational activities," such as contract negotiations and grievance managements for its membership, according to its 2016 federal labor filings. Its political spending accounted for more than 27 percent of all its expenditures for the year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gov. Greitens signs bill allowing lower wages on public projects in Missouri | Political Fix | stltoday.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Gov. Greitens signs bill allowing lower wages on public projects in Missouri | Political Fix | stltoday.com


Good. Who would support non-competitive bids as a matter of policy?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Who would support non-competitive bids as a matter of policy?


I see what you did there...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

School Board Shakeup in Los Angeles



> Many of L.A.’s education woes can be traced to its school board and the United Teachers of Los Angeles union, which has controlled the board for years. And that’s why what happened on May 6 is so remarkable. Two reformers—Nick Melvoin, a former inner-city middle school teacher who lost his job due to union-backed seniority rules, and Kelly Gonez, currently a charter school science teacher—were elected to the LAUSD board. Reformers now constitute a majority of the seven-member governing body in America’s second-largest city.


More:



> The Los Angeles school district has distinguished itself by poorly educated students, a dubious graduation rate, shrinking enrollment, a serious financial shortfall, and a zealous teachers’ union leader who, more than anything, wants to maintain—and in fact increase—his union’s power, even if it takes a “state crisis” to do so.


It will be interesting to see how this pans out.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

FeXL said:


> School Board Shakeup in Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sadly, the U.S. has a dreadful history in governance of public school. In Detroit, and I live right across the river from it, the DPS system is almost $1B in debt.....that's a B. One city and its almost a billion in debt!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Rps said:


> Sadly, the U.S. has a dreadful history in governance of public school. In Detroit, and I live right across the river from it, the DPS system is almost $1B in debt.....that's a B. One city and its almost a billion in debt!


I read some of these numbers & I'm shocked.

I know that there are certain correlations between Dem policy & say, city debt, gun deaths, etc. I haven't read anything about a correlation between traditionally Dem controlled cities & whether their school debt is proportionately higher or not. It wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

FeXL, from my perspective the U.S. system is a Marxist dream. Constant supply of low cost, poorly trained and compliant labour. One has to question a system which rewards delusions of adequacy.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

OK, so, coupla things.

First, article is nearly two years old so bear the timeframe in mind.
Second, could have been posted in a number of threads but the Union one seemed most pertinent.

Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million donation to Newark public schools failed miserably -- here's where it went wrong



> In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg donated $US100 million to Newark, New Jersey’s failing public-school system with the intention of turning around the schools in five years.
> 
> The goals Zuckerberg set out to achieve — to enact a number of reforms that would make Newark a model city for education reform — are widely seen as a failure, journalist Dale Russakoff told Business Insider.
> 
> So where exactly did that $US100 million go if the turnaround was a failure?


More:



> The $US100 million from Zuckerberg actually became $US200 million under the agreement other sources would match his contribution. Here’s where that money went:
> 
> *1. Labour and contract costs: $US89.2 million*


M'bold.

Further:



> One of the biggest failures in Zuckerberg’s plan to reform Newark schools was the renegotiated teachers’ contracts.


Finally:



> Finally, $US20 million of Zuckerberg’s donation went to consultants who took care of management of the projects. While not technically a failure, this contributed to the poor optics of the plan.
> 
> *Consultants were making $US1000 a day*...


M'bold.

Somebody, anybody, please, sign me up for a nice, cushy $1000/day consulting job advising on a social experiment destined to fail from day one...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Rps said:


> Sadly, the U.S. has a dreadful history in governance of public school. In Detroit, and I live right across the river from it, the DPS system is almost $1B in debt.....that's a B. One city and its almost a billion in debt!


I checked some cost data, and the LA system does not look underfunded. Certainly not to the point of justifying such terrible outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Unified_School_District
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_District_School_Board

Toronto's board gets a bit more per student, but they're getting Canadian dollars...and presumably also have to pay enormous heating bills.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Somebody, anybody, please, sign me up for a nice, cushy $1000/day consulting job advising on a social experiment destined to fail from day one...


Those rates look low. Maybe they should have gotten better consultants.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> Those rates look low. Maybe they should have gotten better consultants.


Yeah, 'cause $2000/day consultants could definitely have turned this sow's ear into a silk purse... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Yeah, 'cause $2000/day consultants could definitely have turned this sow's ear into a silk purse... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


You at least get silk-lined suits.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> You at least get silk-lined suits.


Is that important?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Is that important?


They feel better. Look spiffy too. If you're getting useless advice on how to implement a bad idea, the person should at least look sharp while wasting your time. They should also use a high quality of paper stock for their over-sized reports. The extra $1,000/day is about the little things.

But, yeah, nothing was going to save that $200 million.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An interesting overview on union pensions backed by a StatsCan report.

Thought your taxes went to hospitals, roads, bridges or other infrastructure? Over 70% goes straight into employee bank accounts. They collect huge salaries then gigantic pensions until the day they die. Pension costs have increased 530% over the past 15 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But otherwise, how will the rude cipher who answers phones be able to engage in world travel after retirement?r


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Yep - saw this coming. 

Politicians and employers catering to the baby-boomer demographic during heyday consumerism promised generous pensions that depend on (unsustainably) ever-increasing subsequent generations to cover the costs. 

I was taught at an early age to, not only expect no 'pension' for myself, but to prepare any off-spring for the burden of covering the costs of these generous pensions.

:-(




SINC said:


> An interesting overview on union pensions backed by a StatsCan report.
> 
> Thought your taxes went to hospitals, roads, bridges or other infrastructure? Over 70% goes straight into employee bank accounts. They collect huge salaries then gigantic pensions until the day they die. Pension costs have increased 530% over the past 15 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nice to see you again, vancouverdave!

The problem with generous government pensions is that they were once designed to compensate for government wages that were LOWER than those found in the regular market. That's why they were called public service jobs. Now both wages and pensions/benefits are sky high.

Many American cities are going bankrupt because they can't pay the unfunded pension liability. In Houston alone, the pension system is $8.2 *BILLION *in the hole:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...oves-Houston-pension-reform-bill-11131170.php




vancouverdave said:


> Yep - saw this coming.
> 
> Politicians and employers catering to the baby-boomer demographic during heyday consumerism promised generous pensions that depend on (unsustainably) ever-increasing subsequent generations to cover the costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Good point. I see, even now, the public sector struggles to compete with private sector salaries when trying to recruit and retain talented workers.



Macfury said:


> Nice to see you again, vancouverdave!
> 
> The problem with generous government pensions is that they were once designed to compensate for government wages that were LOWER than those found in the regular market. That's why they were called public service jobs. Now both wages and pensions/benefits are sky high.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

vancouverdave said:


> ...when trying to recruit and retain talented workers.


The public sector doesn't care about talent. All they care about is an ass (take that either way...) to plunk down in a seat & vote left. The dumber you are & the fewer questions you ask, the better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The problem with generous government pensions is that they were once designed to compensate for government wages that were LOWER than those found in the regular market. That's why they were called public service jobs. Now both wages and pensions/benefits are sky high.


I think this problem relates to scale. For a much smaller civil service, the pay and benefits are still below the private sector for the best people. But at the current size, a lot of average and below average people (for their education level) get hired. Most will never voluntarily leave because they have the best job they could possibly get.

Meanwhile, some genuine civil servants remain, taking lower pay than otherwise to serve the ideal. They're outnumbered.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

For all you union haters and union supporters today will be a watershed day as the SCOTUS rules on the Janus case. Public service unions everywhere, and maybe all unions are holding their collective breath I think on this one. If you are not familiar it would be the U.S. equivalent of reminding the Rand Formula.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Rps said:


> For all you union haters and union supporters today will be a watershed day as the SCOTUS rules on the Janus case. Public service unions everywhere, and maybe all unions are holding their collective breath I think on this one. If you are not familiar it would be the U.S. equivalent of reminding the Rand Formula.


Related:

Dem Senators Rally for Unions as SCOTUS Hears Mandatory-Dues Case



> Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D.) and Ed Markey (D.) on Monday spoke at a Boston rally supporting the right of public-sector unions to extract mandatory dues.
> 
> These Democrats made the case that the Supreme Court should maintain government agencies’ right to mandate so-called fair share fees, Mass Live reported. They joined with union leaders to fight for the defendant in this case, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31, as the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments about it.
> 
> *The senators from the Bay State said the case against mandated fees is a scheme by Republicans’ billionaire donors.*


Bold mine.

As opposed to say, Soros, Democrat billionaire donor?

And, if Fauxcahontas is for it, it's probably worth fighting against...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good for Doug!

Kelly McParland: Incoming Premier Doug sends a shot across the public service’s bow | National Post


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yet another reason we need to vote out the NDP. Unions drive up the cost of living and especially government employee costs. The NDP's real purpose is union driven.

*Union membership in Alberta creeping up*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmo...n-mcgowan-1.4713431?cmp=news-digests-edmonton


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Related to my post #232 above:

So. Much. Winning.



> Fox News;
> 
> _In a major legal and political defeat for big labor, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that state government workers – whether they join the union or not – cannot be forced to pay so-called “fair share” fees to support collective bargaining and other union activities.
> 
> ...


:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This sets a great precedent!



FeXL said:


> Related to my post #232 above:
> 
> So. Much. Winning.
> 
> ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> This sets a great precedent!


Agreed.

Related:

Supreme Court Deals Severe Blow to Public Unions



> On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no government employee can be fired for refusing to financially support a union. The decision frees workers who do not wish to join a union from being forced to pay the union nevertheless. This will likely spark a massive exodus from the ranks of public sector unions, weakening the Democratic Party.


Related, too:

Reversing 40 Year Precedent, Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That Unions Cannot Extract Fees from Non-Consenting Non-Members



> So -- I guess unions will now be forced to _appeal_ to workers and gain their consent/support for their decisions? How unamerican! It's much more American just to take money from unwilling people and spend it on whatever political purposes you like.


Nails it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Related to the above.

New York Times: Say, Let's "Fix" the Janus Decision By Empowering the Government to Directly Thieve Money Away from Public Sector Employees' Checks, and Send That Stolen Money Straight to Unions



> Yes! Let's have the government turn to straight-up theft to take citizens' money to deliver it to their clients!
> 
> Let's get this Revolution started!


Brilliant!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further on the Janus decision.

Public Unions Try to Hold the Line



> Though the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling earlier this year was supposed to empty out their coffers, many government unions have yet to feel the full impact of the decision, which bars them from collecting fees from nonmembers. After decades of levying these charges, some unions remain flush with cash heading into this season’s elections, and they’re pouring millions of dollars into campaigns around the country—especially in Republican-controlled states—to raise taxes, expand government programs, increase mandates on businesses, and support political allies. Their efforts are a reminder that, for the time being at least, government unions remain a formidable force in American politics, waging battles for bigger, more expensive government.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Right to Work Wins Out in Kentucky



> Labor unions were dealt another blow in Kentucky after the state supreme court upheld its right to work law.
> 
> The state's highest court upheld a lower court judge's ruling dismissing the lawsuit filed by Teamsters Local 89. The 4-3 majority affirmed that the law, which prohibits mandatory union fees as a condition of employment, passed state constitutional muster and was appropriate under federal labor law.


Slowly. Surely...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Union thuggery, post-Janus.

Union Time, Taxpayer Dime: an Update



> Extracting coerced payments from workers as a condition of employment, public-employee unions have enjoyed explosive growth and exerted enormous political influence, even as their private-sector counterparts decline in size and power. They faced a setback this year, though, when the Supreme Court ruled in _Janus v. AFSCME_ that collecting mandatory “agency fees” from non-members is unconstitutional. Stung by the _Janus_ decision, unions representing government employees are desperate to discourage legal challenges to taxpayer subsidies, such as the little-known but widespread practice of putting union bosses on the government payroll.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further union thuggery.

Unions Won't Let People Resign, Won't Stop Taking Their "Dues" Money



> I put "dues" in quotes because this money is no longer due -- the Supreme Court said so.
> 
> Yet the thieving unions keep on taking it anyway.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Colour me surprised...

Look who is getting protected from single-payer health insurance



> Public-sector unions are definitely off the bandwagon for single-payer health insurance in New York, because it’s a bad deal for them. Of course, that’s true for most New Yorkers.
> 
> The Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella group representing city unions, met last week with Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, the sponsors of the single-payer bill, Politico reports. Their demand: a carve-out so they can keep their current health-insurance arrangements.


...not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wrong thread!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Even more union thuggery!

Seasonal UPS Workers Had Almost Entire Paychecks Handed Over To Union



> Sheila O’Malley of Charlestown couldn’t believe it when she opened her paycheck from her seasonal job at UPS. “I was shocked,” she told the I-Team. She worked 41 hours that week, many of them during the overnight, and ended up with just $14.52.


Another conservative is born.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Further _progressive thinking_.

The True Heart of CUPE’s Leadership



> You may have heard about the widespread oppression of the Venezuelan people the last few years. If not, watch this.
> 
> One would logically assume that CUPE members have access to such information. It’s thus quite puzzling to understand how the CUPE leadership vehemently supports the dictator of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro:
> 
> ...


Only the political correct gender/sex/colour/religion/whatever _du jour_. Unfortunately for Venezuelan citizens suffering, starving & dying under Maduro, today is _not_ their day. 

However, it is the correct day for supporting progressive totalitarian socialist communist dictators (BIRM).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The cost of unions in BC.

*CBAs on just three public projects in B.C. will boost costs by tens of millions*



> VICTORIA — The New Democrats are continuing to drive up the cost of taxpayer-financed construction in the province, with more than $4 billion worth of projects already covered by union-friendly community benefit agreements.
> 
> The CBAs require workers on designated projects to join one of 19 NDP-favoured unions within 30 days. They also include pay, benefits and other conditions that can add as much as seven per cent to the cost of construction, by the government’s own admission.
> 
> Three recent announcements from the ministry of transportation and infrastructure should give a sense of the size and scope of the NDP’s intentions on the file.


More at the link.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/co...Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1551235714


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

West Virginia Teachers, Parents: We’re Scared To Disagree With Striking Teachers Unions



> Last week, teachers in West Virginia staged a statewide strike for the second time in as many years. The 2018 walkout, which forced students to miss nine days of school and inspired copycat strikes across the nation, primarily focused on teachers’ salaries and benefits.
> 
> For the most part, the strong-arm tactics worked. Not only did teachers get a 5 percent raise last year, they were also promised an additional 5 percent raise in this year’s bill, along with other financial perks and amendments to their health plans.
> 
> It all fell apart this year, though, when legislators had the gall to couple the promised pay raises with education choice and other reforms in an education omnibus. The central sticking point: Senate Bill 451 tried to authorize a handful of public charter schools (the number would have been capped at seven schools — for the entire state), as well as $3,300 in Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) for a very limited number of special-needs students.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The local Canada Post unionistas are demonstrating the value of unions once again. I get a mail delivery early in the afternoon. Around 5:30 pm. I get a second mail delivery from a different postal worker who rewalks the entire route carrying the "excess mail" that the previous postal worker was "too busy" to carry. Overtime prevented--job well done!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The local Canada Post unionistas are demonstrating the value of unions once again. I get a mail delivery early in the afternoon. Around 5:30 pm. I get a second mail delivery from a different postal worker who rewalks the entire route carrying the "excess mail" that the previous postal worker was "too busy" to carry. Overtime prevented--job well done!


Only in a gov't bureaucracy.

<shaking my head>...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Only in a gov't bureaucracy.
> 
> <shaking my head>...


It's worse than that. Each mail delivery person first walks the length of the street between two major intersections without dropping a letter. They then walk back down the same side of the street and start delivering. Then it's the same on the other side of the street. Not all of the postal workers embarrass themselves this way, but I have seen it happening well before the strike.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

_Janus_, anyone?

Ohio Union Faces Class Action Suit



> An Ohio woman is suing one of the state's most powerful unions for its continued collection of dues payments over her objections.
> 
> Connie Pennington has been forced to pay dues to the Communication Workers of America Local 4502 as part of her job with the city of Columbus, but attempted to sever ties after the Supreme Court declared mandatory dues payments unconstitutional in the 2018_ Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees_ ruling. The union has maintained that workers should not be allowed to leave the union until its contract with the city expires in 2020. The lawsuit filed by Pennington seeks to overturn that policy and allow the union's 1,400 government workers to exercise their rights immediately, rather than waiting for the 30-day withdrawal window specified in the city's union contract.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

America's highest paid union at existential risk from widened Panama Canal



> West Coast Longshore and Warehouse Union, whose members earn average wages and benefits of $285,000 by raising labor hell, is facing existential risk from the widened Panama Canal.
> 
> The San Francisco Chronicle described the 42,000 card-carrying International Longshore and Warehouse Union members that since 1934 has maintained iron-fisted control of all 29 West Coast commercial ports, "the aristocrats of the working class."
> 
> *ILWU full-time workers receive an average of $175,000 in annual wages, along with a non-wage benefits package costing more than $110,000 per active worker per year. Benefits include fully paid health care, employer 401(k) matching, 13 paid holidays, six weeks of paid vacation, and eligibility for $95,000 pensions with lifetime health care.*


Bold mine.

That's some plum job...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

UAW Scandal Hits Chattanooga



> A labor watchdog is making the United Auto Workers' bribery scandal the centerpiece of its campaign urging workers to reject unionization.
> 
> The UAW is attempting to gain a foothold in right-to-work Tennessee, pushing to organize a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga that rejected a previous union vote. The election will take place just weeks after a top union official pleaded guilty for his role in a bribery scandal at Chrysler. The Center for Union Facts has made it a priority to inform workers of corruption ahead of the vote, taking out full-page ads in the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Wednesday.
> 
> "Think the UAW has workers' best interests in mind?" the ad says. "Multiple union officials pleaded guilty in a scheme to enrich themselves with worker training funds. The union has paid more than $1.5 million of members' dues to defend itself in the investigation."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If the UCP does nothing else this term, they have done one thing very right by restoring the secret ballot to any employee vote to certify a union in the province. 

This removes the threats and intimidation unions use to bully employees into forming a union. Best thing ever against forced unionism, an all too common tactic used by union thugs.



> Alberta's Bill 2 will restore mandatory secret ballot for all union certification votes, and return to a 90-day period (down from six months) for unions to provide evidence of employee support for certification.
> 
> The government will also establish a program by Oct. 1 to provide “support and assistance” to unionized employees for them to better understand and exercise their rights under the labour relations code.
> 
> Changes affecting unions would take effect when the bill receives royal assent or when regulations are completed.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> If the UCP does nothing else this term, they have done one thing very right by restoring the secret ballot to any employee vote to certify a union in the province.
> 
> This removes the threats and intimidation unions use to bully employees into forming a union. Best thing ever against forced unionism, an all too common tactic used by union thugs.


I'm not always in a agreement with King Con, but this one does get a check mark from me.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

After Trump Rule Change, Minnesota Home Care Workers Can Decide for Themselves Whether to Pay Union Dues



> Minnesota Personal Care Attendants (PCAs) are speaking out about the Trump administration's decision to prevent unions from taking hundreds of millions of dollars from their paychecks.
> 
> The Obama-era rule allowed Medicaid payments to be diverted to government unions, which the Trump administration found violates the Social Security Act.
> 
> "The rule change means family members and friends who stay home to care for loved ones will keep all of the Medicaid payments intended for them, rather than paying hundreds of dollars to the SEIU," the state's fiscal conservative think tank, the Center of the American Experiment, said in a statement.


Good.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Shocka...

FBI Raids United Automobile Workers Chief’s House, Finds ‘Wads’ Of Cash



> The FBI and IRS raided the home of the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Chief President Gary Jones Wednesday and discovered wads of cash.
> 
> As many as 12 agents enacted a “knock and announce” protocol as they raided Jones’s Detroit home, according to the Detroit Free Press. Authorities also raided the former UAW chief’s California home, Dennis Williams, the UAW Michigan conference center, and several other UAW spots in Wisconsin and Missouri.
> 
> 47-year-old neighbor J. Kevin Telepo watched the raid through the window using binoculars and saw FBI agents counting “wads” of money in Jones’ garage, the Detroit Free Press reports.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Shhh! They're eating their own...

The Big Split



> The Far Left “brain trust” that now seems to control the Democrat Party believes that their route to electoral success is to go further & further left. Many in the media and academia are 100% behind them.
> 
> Regular, working class people in American – many of them union members – may very well have a very different idea. The 2020 election is going to be interesting.
> 
> ...


When you're so far left even the unions are disassociating from you...

:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hold Your Breath And Stamp Your Feet And Pass Laws All You Want: The Price-Demand Curve Will Never Change



> Unionizing Uber
> 
> *Uber lost $5.2 billion in the second quarter of 2019. New York City already imposed a minimum wage of $27.86 for Uber and Lyft. Taking an Uber in New York is now more expensive than calling for a car service. And customers voted with their wallets by looking for other options for going from A to B.*
> 
> ...


Bold mine.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Generous Motors No More



> “G.M. Workers Say They Sacrificed, and Now They Want Their Due,” a headline in the _New York Times_ declares. Another explains, “For G.M. Workers, U.A.W. Strike Is Chance for Overdue Payback.” The gist of both stories is that workers suffered enormously during the General Motors government bailout and subsequent bankruptcy, and now that times are flush, they want to be made whole. As the United Auto Workers said about their strike against GM, which began on Monday, the union is looking for “fair wages, affordable healthcare, our share of profits.”
> 
> The union must be hoping that everyone forgets recent history. After all, Washington’s 2008 bailout of the auto giant saved not only tens of thousands of jobs but also rescued employee pensions. Workers currently pay far less for health care than the average private-sector employee. And GM production workers have received billions of dollars of profit-sharing over the past several years. Now, the company is negotiating with the UAW in a bid to remain flexible in the face of a weakening auto market, while the UAW is looking for a contract that reflects the old days—when GM’s fixed personnel costs provided benefits for workers to cherish but gave the automaker little room to maneuver in the face of declining sales. It’s a battle of the old unionized industrial economy versus a new one that’s trying to emerge. Saving industrial jobs in the U.S. probably requires that the newer model succeed.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I fail to see the problem.

Education Unions Report Sharp Declines in Membership, Revenue



> Teachers' unions are experiencing sharp declines in membership and revenue in former union strongholds Oregon and Washington, according to new annual reports.
> 
> Two Oregon teachers' unions—the state's American Federation of Teachers (AFT) chapter and the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA)—reported drops in paying members of 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Both unions lost nearly $1 million in revenue as a result, with the OSEA closing three field offices and accepting a $400,000 bailout from its parent organization to help make ends meet. In Washington, the Federation of State Employees disclosed a 27 percent decline in financial supporters since June 2018.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> I fail to see the problem.
> 
> Education Unions Report Sharp Declines in Membership, Revenue
> 
> ...


Who says there's no good news out there?!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Awwww... :-(

Government Union Reports Sharp Decline in Political Spending



> One of the country's top labor unions cut its political spending in union stronghold Oregon after seeing dues drop by $2 million, according to its annual report.
> 
> Oregon's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) chapter reported just $1.6 million in political activities and lobbying in its 2019 report, down over $500,000 from 2018. The decline in political spending reflects the union's struggle to maintain its membership after the Supreme Court banned mandatory fees in the 2018 Janus decision. Dues fell by $2 million in the first year after the ruling.


Almost brings a tear to yer eye, donnit...

:lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Union Probe Finds Close Biden Ally Misappropriated Millions-$6 million unaccounted for at firefighters union



> One of Joe Biden's closest labor allies inappropriately siphoned nearly $1 million from a union pension fund as the labor group suffered from a "systemic misrepresentation in financial reporting," according to an internal probe obtained by the _Washington Free Beacon_.


Shocka...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Would you like hypocrisy with that? Boss of ‘socialist themed vegan meat company’ filmed busting union drive



> The CEO of a socialist themed vegan meat company pleaded with workers not to join a union, arguing that it would hamper the firm’s efforts to “change the world.” Because nothing seasons fake meat quite like a dollop of hypocrisy.


Hypocritical Prog?

Shocka...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Buzzfeed hut down HuffPost Canada and HuffPost Quebec. HuffPost workers had just formed a union, but stated: "We have been told this decision was made before our organizing effort and is not linked to our unionizing."

Could be so, but I'm sure that it made the decision much easier.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/huffpost-canada-closing-1.5942533


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Huh. Maybe unions aren't as useless as I had always envisioned.

*Ohio Nurses’ Union Poll Finds 30% Would Quit Hospital Over Vax Mandate.*



> A survey by an Ohio nurses’ union for the University of Cincinnati Medical Center (UCMC) found that almost a third of respondents would quit their jobs if UCMC officially finalized a Covid vaccine mandate, of which the hospital has made a preliminary announcement.


And

*NYC Teachers Union to Take Legal Action Against Call for Layoffs of Unvaccinated Staff*



> The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is resisting full compliance with New York City’s vaccine mandate for public school teachers and staffers.
> 
> Michael Mulgrew, president of UFT, said city hall has asserted that unvaccinated staffers will be taken off the payroll without exception, including those with religious and medical exemptions.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Same old same old. Only good if they support your NARRATIVE.


----------

