12-12-2014 08:04 AM
350 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    This is true. Sadly unions formed and are still around due to how employers treat employees by in large.

    Your 40 hour work week, you can thank the unions
    Work place safety Again Unions,
    Vacation again unions.
    Unions are a huge part to the growth of middle class. It took them working as a large group to force things to change.
    I have no doubt that unions did a lot of good for the workforce as a whole. I just question some of the things that happen today is all. Not all of the things. Just some.

    Like maybe policies/procedures need to catch up with the times (also true in many other areas).

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    01-21-2014 02:01 PM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Again when talking about wages Employee to Employer who holds the cards. Oh way the Employer does.
    In Employer to Union both hold cards. Their is a lot more power in terms of group.
    Just like in company health insurances. Large companies get a much better rate. Small business will band together to get a better rate.

    Same issue here.
    You seem to think it is Union vs Employer. Have you ever thoguh it is Union working with Employer.
    A good Union first and only interested should be to its members. This means they have more tools they can use to get better pay. Something more than most of the members can do plus they hold a stronger stack.
    Union also per contract and be preventing from striking. They might be something like binding arbitration and when that happens both saids have to accept what ever is done.
    You are right. You then have a way to force the employer to do whatever you want. You can then force the company to create less profit and prevent the job market from working properly. You can make the company less competitive and devalue it. You can get greedy and destroy the company. But do not fear, there is never a shortage of someone else to blame.

    Forcing an employer is never a good option. It only breeds problems.
    01-21-2014 02:17 PM
  3. palandri's Avatar
    There is little that is peaceful about an entire workforce making demands. Are you trying to say that there is never a threat of strike or other actions? It is like gathering an army and marching to the employer's doorstep to "just talk" about salary. To unionize is to draw a line and force a wedge in between the workers and the employer. It is saying "we have to gather and force you because we have more power over you collectively". Imposing power, last time i checked, is the same as threatening to fight. Putting a gun to your employer's head...

    Collective bargaining is simply taking away individual's right to bargain for themselves. No one will ever represent you better than you. And again, to gather against is to force.
    That's what you've been taught and it's not correct. We negotiate, we don't slam our fist down and pound on the table and demand and threaten the employers. That will get you nowhere, we sit down and negotiate. We signed a no strike agreement years ago and so did the contractors, any contract issue that is unresolved at the negotiating table is sent to binding arbitration. Labor unions are always willing to sign a no strike agreement as long as the employer agrees to binding arbitration on unresolved issues.

    If you don't like collective bargaining, don't join a union then your individual right to bargain for yourself will never be infringed on.
    oz123 and msndrstood like this.
    01-21-2014 02:35 PM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    You are right. You then have a way to force the employer to do whatever you want. You can then force the company to create less profit and prevent the job market from working properly. You can make the company less competitive and devalue it. You can get greedy and destroy the company. But do not fear, there is never a shortage of someone else to blame.

    Forcing an employer is never a good option. It only breeds problems.
    You are absolutely wrong, there is never any forcing, that's extortion and it's a criminal offense.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-21-2014 02:36 PM
  5. xchange's Avatar
    They own the company. They can do with it as they please within the law. Employees agree to provide a service for a price. The employer allows them to work there. It is not a hard concept. The company's purpose is to produce profits. It has no obligation other than that. This is not a reason to hate companies. This is a reason to prove your worth to them and make sure you work for people that recognize the value you have. If the company does not recognize that value, they do not deserve your service. If no company will recognize your value, you have over valued yourself.
    So carte blanche for the employer then? Like it or leave? I'm curious what your solution is for workers who have invested 15+ years into a company are supposed to do if that company's treatment of them suddenly turns sour. Just leave as you say? Give up any promotions, vacation seniority, the establishment of their family into the community? Yank the kids out of school. Yay, look at me, I'm 50 years old and starting all over again, pack up our lives honey! Look at all those employers lining up to hire 40-50 year old me at the top of their list! Just a few examples.

    That's an interesting, if extremist and unreasonable way to look at things. I think I prefer Timlessblur and palandri's points above better than your solution though since it doesn't involve taking a raw shaft up the rear end but thanks.
    palandri, oz123 and msndrstood like this.
    01-21-2014 02:53 PM
  6. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That's what you've been taught and it's not correct. We negotiate, we don't slam our fist down and pound on the table and demand and threaten the employers. That will get you nowhere, we sit down and negotiate. We signed a no strike agreement years ago and so did the contractors, any contract issue that is unresolved at the negotiating table is sent to binding arbitration. Labor unions are always willing to sign a no strike agreement as long as the employer agrees to binding arbitration on unresolved issues.

    If you don't like collective bargaining, don't join a union then your individual right to bargain for yourself will never be infringed on.
    There is always that threat though. What if the violate binding arbitration? What if they just say "no". Then you strike correct? So that is always an option. Thus you are forcing the employer under a threat.

    Right to work laws protect my right to not be forced into unions and avoid collective bargaining yes.
    01-21-2014 02:57 PM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    You are absolutely wrong, there is never any forcing, that's extortion and it's a criminal offense.
    You ever hear of the use of Corporate Campaigns to coerce a Neutrality Agreement?
    01-21-2014 02:59 PM
  8. Timelessblur's Avatar
    There is always that threat though. What if the violate binding arbitration? What if they just say "no". Then you strike correct? So that is always an option. Thus you are forcing the employer under a threat.

    Right to work laws protect my right to not be forced into unions and avoid collective bargaining yes.
    Right to Work laws is anything but that.

    Right to Work laws benefit the employer greatly. RtW does not really help the employee that much. Right to Work is more Right to Fire.
    You pretty much keep spouting off the standard GOP lies and BS about unions and the crap the media force out but look no farther than that. Strikes are over all a rarity. Hell even the threat is rare.

    Do you know what binding arbitration even is?
    You can try to say no to that and guess what you are taken to court in an open shut case and lose for breach of contract. Simple as that. If the unions agree to the no strike with binding arbitration they can not strike. End of story. The contract says you accept what comes out of arbitration. Generally speaking neither side wants to go to arbitration as generally both get screwed and neither are happy but they have to live with it for the length of the contract.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    01-21-2014 03:04 PM
  9. NoYankees44's Avatar
    So carte blanche for the employer then? Like it or leave? I'm curious what your solution is for workers who have invested 15+ years into a company are supposed to do if that company's treatment of them suddenly turns sour. Just leave as you say? Give up any promotions, vacation seniority, the establishment of their family into the community? Yank the kids out of school. Yay, look at me, I'm 50 years old and starting all over again, pack up our lives honey! Look at all those employers lining up to hire 40-50 year old me at the top of their list! Just a few examples.

    That's an interesting, if extremist and unreasonable way to look at things. I think I prefer Timlessblur and palandri's points above better than your solution though since it doesn't involve taking a raw shaft up the rear end but thanks.
    It happens all the time. However if you work for a good company to begin with and that happens, the company is probably hitting rough times for what ever reason. A union cannot fix that. And if you have 15 years experience in something, you should be able to take those skills somewhere else for compatible compensation. Not a great option obviously, but not one that should be avoided at all costs as you suggest. It is better than living in an "Us vs Them" environment.This is why you make sure you know who you work for. Radical changes in companies rarely happen over night.

    If i have to force my employer to pay me what i am truly worth, i do not want to work there. Plain and simple.

    And here is a little secret that good companies have figured out: Good workers come at a good price, but are worth it in the end. People that work for companies like this do not need unions
    01-21-2014 03:08 PM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    There is always that threat though. What if the violate binding arbitration? What if they just say "no". Then you strike correct? So that is always an option. Thus you are forcing the employer under a threat.

    Right to work laws protect my right to not be forced into unions and avoid collective bargaining yes.
    No, we're way beyond that. Both sides realize a strike or a lockout hurts both sides. Binding arbitration with an arbitrator that both sides agree is unbiased and fair, is the only way to go.

    Like I said in my first post, right to work laws give employees of a unionized shop the right to reject the democratic process voted in by the majority of employees. They need not pay union dues nor follow any contract rules voted in by the majority of the employees. When you think about it, it's no different than writing a law that allows people to reject a democratically elected representative (city council, congressman...etc...) and not follow any laws or taxes backed by the majority of the people. Right to work laws are simply antidemocratic.

    Have you checked your wages against UAW wages to see how much more you're making with your individual negotiations?
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-21-2014 03:09 PM
  11. xchange's Avatar
    It happens all the time. However if you work for a good company to begin with and that happens, the company is probably hitting rough times for what ever reason. A union cannot fix that. And if you have 15 years experience in something, you should be able to take those skills somewhere else for compatible compensation. Not a great option obviously, but not one that should be avoided at all costs as you suggest. It is better than living in an "Us vs Them" environment.This is why you make sure you know who you work for. Radical changes in companies rarely happen over night.

    If i have to force my employer to pay me what i am truly worth, i do not want to work there. Plain and simple.

    And here is a little secret that good companies have figured out: Good workers come at a good price, but are worth it in the end. People that work for companies like this do not need unions
    Palandri raised an excellent point, being that you have zero personal experience with how unions work, and to be blunt it shows. I'm not sure what this new tack is you're trying to argue - that unions are all about threatening and fighting and forcing concessions and "us vs them" but it's not only wrong in the vast majority of cases, but something I'd expect to see in a cartoon comic portrayal. And now you're saying that companies mostly only turn sour on their employees because the company is on hard times? That the CEO is a wizened and benevolent grandfatherly figure with a big heart who's just so deeply hurt that he has to do this to his beloved employees whom he loves and cherishes? Come ON man! This isn't a Disney after school special.
    palandri likes this.
    01-21-2014 03:25 PM
  12. xchange's Avatar
    Human nature. There will always be a struggle between vice and virtue. Those in power can become corrupt and fail to recognized the rights of the workers under them. If the workers have no voice and are not organized, they are taken advantage of. Those in power that do not become corrupt could be considered "benevolent dictators." They do exist, but they are few, far and in between. The union provides a "checks and balances" of the work place, and getting rid of them creates an unbalanced system that ill-intentioned people WILL take advantage of. Why should the employer be justified in saying like it or leave to their workers who have provided the backbone to get that company/employer where they are, some of whom have dedicated their lives in doing so, and have established deep roots in the community?
    palandri likes this.
    01-21-2014 03:46 PM
  13. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    * I've been holding this post back for quite awhile because I was afraid you would be offended by it in some way.
    Oh, no, not at all! You've gone out of your way to be polite and demonstrate that you actually are concerned, which means more than you can know. So, first off, thanks!

    I have had a lot of conversations with other people who've had much the same experience as me, so I don't really believe I'm being singled out. That being said, odds are you have been applying for quite different positions that I have -- or likely would be -- so I'm certain that accounts for it as much as anything.

    So, here's where I'm at. I have a very long background in tech support, in desktop publishing, and of course this is all buttressed by the fact that I am a technology enthusiast at heart. I have ZERO background in coding, and my knowledge of networking, while good enough for me to accomplish basic stuff and do very fundamental-level troubleshooting, wouldn't get me onto the same street as an employer, much less through their front door. I have also never done any centralized system administration, etc. (I'm thinking along the lines of Microsoft server stuff here, or even anything equally advanced in Linux) so those aren't jobs I could pursue, either.

    Very few give two craps any longer about desktop publishing; the Web has largely done that range of industries in, and in any case the big businesses (publishers, ad agencies, etc.) aren't around these parts.

    Other than what's required for me to survive and get back on my feet, I really don't care about any of the above, llamabreath. I've had my "time in the sun" with respect to professional tech-related jobs, and that's just not anything I want to do any longer. Understand that for most of my life I didn't have a CLUE what I wanted to do, and so I just sort of wandered aimlessly in terms of jobs, etc. However, that's actually worked out really well in the end because, now that I do know what I want to do with the rest of my life, the experiences I've thus far acquired are so amazingly applicable that it just can't be adequately communicated in words. Or, at least, not without it sounding like I'm full of myself or badly exaggerating. Anyhow...

    My goal is to become a college professor of English. I have done a bit of tutoring on the side, and actually it was a now former part-time job as an English tutor at my local college that made the lightbulb go on for me about this. I've always loved to teach and explain things to others, to take subjects apart and examine (or help others examine them) from all kinds of angles, but I never thought about teaching outside the context of K-12, which for a host of reasons I'm not going into here, is something I don't want to do.

    Also, I have discovered that I absolutely LOVE teaching and explaining English to non-native speakers, so one of the certifications I'm planning on pursuing ASAP is called the "TEFL" or Teaching English as a Foreign Language. If you have that and are a native speaker of English, $20+ jobs abound all over the world.

    Right now, I'm simply playing a very long hand. But, in the end, I know where I'm going, I know what I'm doing and, as supposedly the Cylons did in the new BSG series, "I have a plan."
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-21-2014 03:49 PM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    01-21-2014 04:11 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    My solution to keep unions at arms length would be to tie ALL workers' salaries together. The CEO wants to make their millions, then the LOWEST PAID WORKER at the company (and that includes anyone that works at a company that reports to ANYONE in that company's chain of command--to prevent any loophole BS) must make at least 1/100 of what the CEO makes. Or, add the salaries of the bottom tier employees, and base the CEO'S salary off that number. Pay your lowest employee $10 an hour, then as CEO, your salary can't be more than $2,080,000 a year.

    It's not that hard to do, but it won't get done until we get all the day dreamers that think they're part of that exclusive club that think one day they'll be big shot CEO'S to snap out of their daydream and realize that they're just pawns in this game.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk 2
    JnEricsonx likes this.
    01-21-2014 06:02 PM
  16. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Ok, for those that say strikes are rare or few and far between (and I have no doubt that's true), there are two fairly recent examples of large strikes that had a huge impact on the public. Chicago Teacher's Union and BART in the Bay Area. I don't know the specifics, only the talking points, but yes, strikes can and do still happen, and sometimes on a large scale with huge impact.
    01-21-2014 10:36 PM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    Ok, for those that say strikes are rare or few and far between (and I have no doubt that's true), there are two fairly recent examples of large strikes that had a huge impact on the public. Chicago Teacher's Union and BART in the Bay Area. I don't know the specifics, only the talking points, but yes, strikes can and do still happen, and sometimes on a large scale with huge impact.
    They can be totally avoided by a no strike agreement and binding arbitration, but for this to happen, both side have to agree to it. I've never known of a labor union that wouldn't agree to a no strike agreement with binding arbitration.
    01-21-2014 11:02 PM
  18. Mooncatt's Avatar
    They can be totally avoided by a no strike agreement and binding arbitration, but for this to happen, both side have to agree to it. I've never known of a labor union that wouldn't agree to a no strike agreement with binding arbitration.
    The union at my dad's old job (the one he wasn't a member of) had a no strike agreement put in after a strike where the company didn't give in and the workers started going hungry. I don't know the specifics or if it had binding arbitration, but he said the union basically didn't have any teeth any more. So basically the union lost out twice.
    01-21-2014 11:06 PM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    The union at my dad's old job (the one he wasn't a member of) had a no strike agreement put in after a strike where the company didn't give in and the workers started going hungry. I don't know the specifics or if it had binding arbitration, but he said the union basically didn't have any teeth any more. So basically the union lost out twice.
    The reason is because the right wing has great a good job at convincing the average worker that unions are bad and that CEOs deserve their yearly millions while the average worker struggles to make it on their wages.
    01-22-2014 05:07 AM
  20. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    My solution to keep unions at arms length would be to tie ALL workers' salaries together.
    This was corporate policy at Ben & Jerry's until Ben and Jerry were bought out by whomever it is who now owns that company.

    It isn't sustainable. After all, the people you're talking about are the very ones who make and have the authority to change company policy. Unless the stockholders themselves refuse to let the executives make more than a certain amount, they will *always* make ridiculous wages.

    Ok, for those that say strikes are rare or few and far between (and I have no doubt that's true), there are two fairly recent examples of large strikes that had a huge impact on the public. Chicago Teacher's Union and BART in the Bay Area. I don't know the specifics, only the talking points, but yes, strikes can and do still happen, and sometimes on a large scale with huge impact.
    In Florida, it is illegal for school teachers to strike. They will be fired and go to jail. So, what's happened over the decades (and especially from the 1990s onward) is they just don't participate in non-mandatory activities like they used to.

    At this point, between state budget cuts and teaching-to-the-test mindlessness, it's amazing to me that kids do anything at all that isn't homework, drill-and-kill practice, and evaluative testing.
    Kevin OQuinn likes this.
    01-22-2014 09:15 AM
  21. xchange's Avatar
    Ok, for those that say strikes are rare or few and far between (and I have no doubt that's true), there are two fairly recent examples of large strikes that had a huge impact on the public. Chicago Teacher's Union and BART in the Bay Area. I don't know the specifics, only the talking points, but yes, strikes can and do still happen, and sometimes on a large scale with huge impact.
    One thing we will never be told publicly but does happen although never admitted is that some strikes are actually forced by the employer. Especially in cases where they can save money in wages by forcing their managers to perform double and triple duties while they lockout employees until the strike is over.

    They never tell you that little piece of information on the news though.
    01-22-2014 09:43 AM
  22. SteveISU's Avatar
    I believe all states should be right to work. Give the employee the choice, lets not make it compulsory to join a union. The only reason unions don't like RTW states is union membership tends to decline in those states.
    01-22-2014 10:35 AM
  23. palandri's Avatar
    I believe all states should be right to work. Give the employee the choice, lets not make it compulsory to join a union. The only reason unions don't like RTW states is union membership tends to decline in those states.
    01-22-2014 10:53 AM
  24. SteveISU's Avatar

    This guy is a dumb *** who makes a disingenuous argument. Let me ask you this, which state has the lower cost of living, New York or Mississippi? Do we ignore that fact when comparing wages? It applies to the private sector doesn't it? I can't walk into my bosses office in Houston and demand to be payed like we're in NY can I?
    01-22-2014 11:08 AM
  25. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I believe all states should be right to work. Give the employee the choice, lets not make it compulsory to join a union. The only reason unions don't like RTW states is union membership tends to decline in those states.

    Really?

    Again you have not address the fact RTW is pure employer benefit.
    RTW for employees is like you do not like a law as such do not have to follow them. Think about it like this way, I do not want to join the US (union) so I do not want to pay taxes (union dues) but I want all the benefits of living here.

    RTW is really right to fire.
    palandri likes this.
    01-22-2014 11:08 AM
350 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. How do I transfer pix from my Mac to this thing?
    By thebignewt in forum Verizon HTC One
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:16 AM
  2. How to relock the boot loader and unroot the galaxy nexus.
    By Ridgerunner20 in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus Rooting, ROM's, and Hack's
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 05:25 AM
  3. Possibly Switching from Verizon to T-Mobile
    By wodehousefan1 in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:33 PM
  5. Galaxy Note 3 "Unable to connect to proxy server"
    By Jelly Belly in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2014, 03:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD