05-10-2015 02:09 PM
101 1234 ...
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Well which makes more sense? Letting people choose which way is better for themselves, or be forced into a program they don't want and have funds forcibly withheld against their will to pay for the program they don't want to be in in the first place?

    Say what you want about Wal-Mart, I admired their stance on unions. They just wouldn't talk to them. Just because a bunch of people sign up for an outside union doesn't mean the company has to recognize it. If the company doesn't sign an agreement, the union has no power. Well, other than threats, violence and vandalism.
    tippmann15 likes this.
    04-14-2015 02:16 PM
  2. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Well which makes more sense? Letting people choose which way is better for themselves, or be forced into a program they don't want and have funds forcibly withheld against their will to pay for the program they don't want to be in in the first place?

    Say what you want about Wal-Mart, I admired their stance on unions. They just wouldn't talk to them. Just because a bunch of people sign up for an outside union doesn't mean the company has to recognize it. If the company doesn't sign an agreement, the union has no power. Well, other than threats, violence and vandalism.
    No one is forced to do anything. Don't want to join a union, then don't work at a unionized company. Just like any other reason you might chose to work at one company over another.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-14-2015 06:39 PM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    If Unions were a good things they would give people the freedom of choice of joining them or not without the the treats of burning down their house or threatening people life and family to join the unions. The SEIU does this and beats people up in public. I live in a Right to Work state and as an American I have the right to work without joining a union. I can't wait till someone in a Non-Right to work state takes this to the Supreme Court. Also, I live in a Castle Law Right state so I have the right protect myself from jackboot Union Thugs that are no different to me than Criminal Drug Street gangs.




    There are extreme cases on both sides, like the employees that are forced to work overtime without overtime pay, told that they need to work through lunch and log that they took a lunch or be fired, or the employers that expect you to be on-call even though they don't pay you. The union leaders that use strong arm tactics are just as bad. As far as I'm concerned, I am glad I am legally allowed to take a lunch, can collect overtime if I work over 40 hours, have a standard 40 hour work week. These are all items that were brought to you thanks to a union. So while I will concede that there are some bad apples out there, that doesn't mean that EVERY shop operates in the same manner.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    04-14-2015 07:40 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    No one is forced to do anything. Don't want to join a union, then don't work at a unionized company. Just like any other reason you might chose to work at one company over another.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Or, work at a union shop, don't pay union dues, but don't expect the same benefits that union members get and don't moan about not getting what they get.
    04-14-2015 07:41 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Or, work at a union shop, don't pay union dues, but don't expect the same benefits that union members get and don't moan about not getting what they get.
    If that's an option, I'm ok with that as long as it's a clear separation. But in some cases, workers not in the union are still forced to abide by union instituted rules. Case in point, my dad used to work at such a plant. He wasn't part of the union and didn't pay dues, but he was still negatively affected. The union had negotiated a rule that if the company had to do layoffs, it was seniority based and not performance based. Being that my dad was "the new guy," he was laid off even though many others that liked to sit on their thumbs all day got to stay.
    04-14-2015 07:52 PM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    If that's an option, I'm ok with that as long as it's a clear separation. But in some cases, workers not in the union are still forced to abide by union instituted rules. Case in point, my dad used to work at such a plant. He wasn't part of the union and didn't pay dues, but he was still negatively affected. The union had negotiated a rule that if the company had to do layoffs, it was seniority based and not performance based. Being that my dad was "the new guy," he was laid off even though many others that liked to sit on their thumbs all day got to stay.
    I've worked at companies where it was supposed to be performance based layoffs, and it was always the suck-ups that got to keep their jobs. At least seniority based, you know that employee has been loyal to the company for longer. Sure after a while the employee's performance may plateau, but shouldn't the employer try to keep that employee challenged by offering growth? Generally, an employee that's been with a company for longer time is going to have a better grasp of how things work than an employee that's newer. What kind of performance metrics were being measured that made your father think he was performing better than someone that had been there longer?

    A long time ago I used to work for a company that measured performance based on how long it took for techs to resolve an issue. One of the guys that had the best record also had a rather average record with first call resolution so while he get issues fixed quicker, the person would always have to call back, not exactly good for the company's bottom line, but since that's the main metric that management cared about, that's all that mattered.
    04-14-2015 10:29 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Ever consider those same suck up's that get preferential performance reviews could be the same suck up's that management just likes to keep around as yes men under a seniority based system? And when you have a lot of lower end employees, you can't try to promote everyone into better positions. Otherwise it's too many chiefs and not enough Indians. So it makes sense to take a step back and see which employees have the natural drive to excel.

    Anyway, my point of the last post wasn't about which metrics are best or worse. It was about a union negotiated rule affecting non-union members. Had it been something like half the layoffs would be union members based on seniority, and the other half non-union based on what the company thought best, then it'd be more equitable. But then you're also adding more complexity and associated costs to both the company and employees.
    04-14-2015 11:08 PM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Ever consider those same suck up's that get preferential performance reviews could be the same suck up's that management just likes to keep around as yes men under a seniority based system? And when you have a lot of lower end employees, you can't try to promote everyone into better positions. Otherwise it's too many chiefs and not enough Indians. So it makes sense to take a step back and see which employees have the natural drive to excel.

    Anyway, my point of the last post wasn't about which metrics are best or worse. It was about a union negotiated rule affecting non-union members. Had it been something like half the layoffs would be union members based on seniority, and the other half non-union based on what the company thought best, then it'd be more equitable. But then you're also adding more complexity and associated costs to both the company and employees.
    Ever consider that those people might be suck ups period? There is a lot of favoritism in the workplace. I have literally had different bosses think I was the greatest employee and others the worst even though these bosses were back to back to back in a chain. I did nothing different. It's crazy how people let their own preconceived biases affect how they view someone, but that's what happens.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 04:05 AM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    Ever consider those same suck up's that get preferential performance reviews could be the same suck up's that management just likes to keep around as yes men under a seniority based system? And when you have a lot of lower end employees, you can't try to promote everyone into better positions. Otherwise it's too many chiefs and not enough Indians. So it makes sense to take a step back and see which employees have the natural drive to excel.

    Anyway, my point of the last post wasn't about which metrics are best or worse. It was about a union negotiated rule affecting non-union members. Had it been something like half the layoffs would be union members based on seniority, and the other half non-union based on what the company thought best, then it'd be more equitable. But then you're also adding more complexity and associated costs to both the company and employees.
    The problem with non-union shops is that there is generally no real measure of performance anymore and accountability is an afterthought. Management tends to have a very ill-conceived opinion of what is good for the company when it comes to measuring an employee's value. Instead, a manager tends to promote someone that they get along with, someone that they can see themselves going out for happy hour with. Hell, the term "Office politics" exemplifies what's wrong with the workplace.

    Letting people work and letting the "best" rise to the top is like people claiming that letting business self-regulate and the good businesses will rise while the bad ones will fail is foolhardy. Do I think that unions are the answer? No not necessarily, but trying to pretend that the system is flawless, yeah under a vacuum a lot of systems are flawless, but then you add man to the equation and it all goes to hell.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    04-15-2015 05:38 AM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I've never said companies were flawless. My beef is workers being forced into a union against their will. Especially if it's one of the outside giant unions like the Teamsters, SEIU, UAW, etc.
    04-15-2015 07:18 AM
  11. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I've never said companies were flawless. My beef is workers being forced into a union against their will. Especially if it's one of the outside giant unions like the Teamsters, SEIU, UAW, etc.
    But again, it's not against their will. Choice choices. People always have the freedom to seek employment in a non unionized company or profession if they would like.

    If they are working at an existing company, and the majority of people vote to join the union, that's fair and democratic. What you are complaining about is like complaining about the majority of people voting for a president (say Obama) and having the minority who didn't vote for him, feeling that was "against their will". Well, just like those people can leave the country if they don't like the leader everyone else picked, people can change employers too.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 12:16 PM
  12. Mooncatt's Avatar
    To use an argument the left likes to use (including here), what about the people in rural towns with only one or two well paying employers and are unionized? I guess you think they should suck it up and be a loyal sheep to the union?
    04-15-2015 12:57 PM
  13. GadgetGator's Avatar
    To use an argument the left likes to use (including here), what about the people in rural towns with only one or two well paying employers and are unionized? I guess you think they should suck it up and be a loyal sheep to the union?
    Well, if the only companies that are "well paying" are unionized and the other employers aren't, I guess both those workers and you, would have to ask why that is. But if you or they want to throw yourself on the sword, and accept lower wages and benefits just to say you don't work for a union, then yay you. Choices!

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 04:10 PM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Well, if the only companies that are "well paying" are unionized and the other employers aren't, I guess both those workers and you, would have to ask why that is. But if you or they want to throw yourself on the sword, and accept lower wages and benefits just to say you don't work for a union, then yay you. Choices!
    So in this case we do have the choice to go elsewhere, but in other situations (like the recent bakers and wedding shops in some of the RFRA debates), we must force those providers to comply or else. I know we already have a thread on that, and I'm only bringing it up for comparative purposes. This is the hypocrisy of the left, it's either your way or the highway and they think people don't know how to fend for themselves.

    And on a related note, I go to a lot of union shops for business. It seems like everyone there has some chip on their shoulder about something and treat visitors like "outsiders" that they are merely putting up with until we get out of their faces. Often times I'm ignored until the one specific person that I need to deal with happens to come by. If I ask someone else for help or to even pass word along to get the right person, they get huffy and act like they don't want to do anything other than their one specific task. I'd take a sizable pay cut just to not have to work in that environment the entire day. Thankfully I only have to deal with their attitudes for a few minutes at a time. Granted, I know this isn't across the board everywhere, but the non-union places have a better reputation for checking their attitudes at the door when they come to work.
    04-15-2015 05:24 PM
  15. GadgetGator's Avatar
    So in this case we do have the choice to go elsewhere, but in other situations (like the recent bakers and wedding shops in some of the RFRA debates), we must force those providers to comply or else. I know we already have a thread on that, and I'm only bringing it up for comparative purposes. This is the hypocrisy of the left, it's either your way or the highway and they think people don't know how to fend for themselves.

    And on a related note, I go to a lot of union shops for business. It seems like everyone there has some chip on their shoulder about something and treat visitors like "outsiders" that they are merely putting up with until we get out of their faces. Often times I'm ignored until the one specific person that I need to deal with happens to come by. If I ask someone else for help or to even pass word along to get the right person, they get huffy and act like they don't want to do anything other than their one specific task. I'd take a sizable pay cut just to not have to work in that environment the entire day. Thankfully I only have to deal with their attitudes for a few minutes at a time. Granted, I know this isn't across the board everywhere, but the non-union places have a better reputation for checking their attitudes at the door when they come to work.
    Way to miss the point. In your example there are other employers to go to. In my examples there are no other bakers or florist to go to. Do yo see the difference between 1 and many? No...of course you don't.

    As for the chip on shoulder problem, I suspect a lot of that is the reflection of your own chip and bias towards unions. All those things you listed, I have experienced plenty of in non union workplaces. Plenty.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 05:53 PM
  16. Shilohcane's Avatar
    No one is forced to do anything. Don't want to join a union, then don't work at a unionized company. Just like any other reason you might chose to work at one company over another.

    Posted via Android Central App
    There is a simple solution to people that want to force other people to join unions against their will. It is for these union people to get out of the USA and move to Europe where socialist practices are the accepted. Unions and States don't have the right to violate our legal rights from our US Constitution.

    There are 25 Right to work states where you can tell the Union Communist to stick it where the sun don't shine that you aren't joining their union. This is America land of the Free not Russia. I won't live in a state that supports communist tactics like the other 25 states that force you to join a union against your will.


    I can't wait till this goes to trial and finally end in the Supreme Court since states forcing people to join unions violates our US Constitution Rights as free citizens.

    Three state workers seek to join Rauner lawsuit over union dues


    (AP) — Three Illinois state employees on Monday sought to join Gov. Bruce Rauner's lawsuit against labor unions, a legal maneuver aimed at trying to end mandatory union dues for nonmembers across the U.S., not just in Illinois.

    All three workers' jobs are covered by collective bargaining agreements, but the employees opted not to join their union. In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, they say the requirement they pay so-called "fair share" dues, which range from about $19 to $60 per month, violates their First Amendment right of free speech because they disagree with union policies.

    "The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose whose speech they support and what groups they associate with," said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the employees. "State workers shouldn't have to sacrifice that right just to keep their jobs.
    04-15-2015 08:15 PM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    To use an argument the left likes to use (including here), what about the people in rural towns with only one or two well paying employers and are unionized? I guess you think they should suck it up and be a loyal sheep to the union?
    So if it's an argument the left uses, can we use the argument the right uses, "They can always choose to move" as a rebuttal?
    GadgetGator likes this.
    04-15-2015 08:41 PM
  18. anon8126715's Avatar
    There is a simple solution to people that want to force other people to join unions is for these union people to get out of the USA and move to Europe where socialist practices are the excepted. Unions don't have the right to violate our legal rights from our US Constitution.

    There are 25 Right to work states where you can tell the Union Communist to stick it where the sun don't shine that you aren't joining their union. This is America land of the Free not Russia. I won't live in a state that supports communist tactics like the other 25 states that force you to join a union against your will.


    I can't wait till this goes to trial and finally end in the Supreme Court since states forcing people to join unions violates our US Constitution Rights as free citizens.

    Three state workers seek to join Rauner lawsuit over union dues


    (AP) — Three Illinois state employees on Monday sought to join Gov. Bruce Rauner's lawsuit against labor unions, a legal maneuver aimed at trying to end mandatory union dues for nonmembers across the U.S., not just in Illinois.

    All three workers' jobs are covered by collective bargaining agreements, but the employees opted not to join their union. In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, they say the requirement they pay so-called "fair share" dues, which range from about $19 to $60 per month, violates their First Amendment right of free speech because they disagree with union policies.

    "The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose whose speech they support and what groups they associate with," said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the employees. "State workers shouldn't have to sacrifice that right just to keep their jobs.
    Why do you hate the middle class so much?
    04-15-2015 08:45 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Way to miss the point. In your example there are other employers to go to. In my examples there are no other bakers or florist to go to. Do yo see the difference between 1 and many? No...of course you don't.

    As for the chip on shoulder problem, I suspect a lot of that is the reflection of your own chip and bias towards unions. All those things you listed, I have experienced plenty of in non union workplaces. Plenty.
    So are you saying that someone being refused a custom service (not talking about gays buying general stock items) is more important than someone being able to make a living? Then again, if such people are forced into low wage jobs, that's more people on welfare and I wouldn't be surprised if the left saw that as a good thing.

    And I can assure you the attitude problem had nothing to do with me. I usually go in to a place and greet them pleasantly and keep all business activities professional. Some times it is just overhearing two or more other people that are having a rant fest just between themselves. I understand some people have an off day, but to greet these people day after day and sometimes be lucky to get more than a grunt in response is indicative of issues on their end. In contrast, the Wal-Mart employees I used to deal with were almost always pleasant when dealing business with them.

    So if it's an argument the left uses, can we use the argument the right uses, "They can always choose to move" as a rebuttal?
    Sure, and I'll keep using the rebuttal, "And people can always choose other places to shop."
    04-15-2015 08:53 PM
  20. GadgetGator's Avatar
    There is a simple solution to people that want to force other people to join unions against their will. It is for these union people to get out of the USA and move to Europe where socialist practices are the accepted. Unions and States don't have the right to violate our legal rights from our US Constitution.

    There are 25 Right to work states where you can tell the Union Communist to stick it where the sun don't shine that you aren't joining their union. This is America land of the Free not Russia. I won't live in a state that supports communist tactics like the other 25 states that force you to join a union against your will.


    I can't wait till this goes to trial and finally end in the Supreme Court since states forcing people to join unions violates our US Constitution Rights as free citizens.

    Three state workers seek to join Rauner lawsuit over union dues


    (AP) — Three Illinois state employees on Monday sought to join Gov. Bruce Rauner's lawsuit against labor unions, a legal maneuver aimed at trying to end mandatory union dues for nonmembers across the U.S., not just in Illinois.

    All three workers' jobs are covered by collective bargaining agreements, but the employees opted not to join their union. In a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, they say the requirement they pay so-called "fair share" dues, which range from about $19 to $60 per month, violates their First Amendment right of free speech because they disagree with union policies.

    "The First Amendment guarantees everyone the right to choose whose speech they support and what groups they associate with," said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the employees. "State workers shouldn't have to sacrifice that right just to keep their jobs.
    Unions have been around since before you were born. Don't want to live in an America with them? Then start building a time machine. Good luck with that.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 10:28 PM
  21. GadgetGator's Avatar
    So are you saying that someone being refused a custom service (not talking about gays buying general stock items) is more important than someone being able to make a living? Then again, if such people are forced into low wage jobs, that's more people on welfare and I wouldn't be surprised if the left saw that as a good thing.

    And I can assure you the attitude problem had nothing to do with me. I usually go in to a place and greet them pleasantly and keep all business activities professional. Some times it is just overhearing two or more other people that are having a rant fest just between themselves. I understand some people have an off day, but to greet these people day after day and sometimes be lucky to get more than a grunt in response is indicative of issues on their end. In contrast, the Wal-Mart employees I used to deal with were almost always pleasant when dealing business with them.


    Sure, and I'll keep using the rebuttal, "And people can always choose other places to shop."
    And I'll keep using the rebuttal "Don't like unions, work somewhere else." Just like if you don't like any other aspects of a job. Isn't that what the right always preaches, freedom of choice (Except abortion and marriage)? Well, here it is. You have the freedom to reject an employer during the research and interview process just as they can reject you.

    As for what is important, I think living wages AND equality is important. Of course the right thinks neither of those things are.

    Posted via Android Central App
    04-15-2015 10:43 PM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    As for what is important, I think living wages AND equality is important. Of course the right thinks neither of those things are.
    I agree both are important from a libertarian standpoint, as part of every individual's choice and not because some law compelled said "choice." And while I still say the idea of a living wage is mostly mythical with how the left uses it, the unions and their over market wages played a large part in the collapse of Detroit and why the foreign auto makers build most of their factories in the south without unions. If you ask me, the government shouldn't have bailed the auto makers out (and yes, I was against bank bailouts too) and left them to suffer their own fate. The role of government isn't to pick winners and losers, but they do it all the time.
    04-16-2015 05:40 AM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    So are you saying that someone being refused a custom service (not talking about gays buying general stock items) is more important than someone being able to make a living? Then again, if such people are forced into low wage jobs, that's more people on welfare and I wouldn't be surprised if the left saw that as a good thing.

    And I can assure you the attitude problem had nothing to do with me. I usually go in to a place and greet them pleasantly and keep all business activities professional. Some times it is just overhearing two or more other people that are having a rant fest just between themselves. I understand some people have an off day, but to greet these people day after day and sometimes be lucky to get more than a grunt in response is indicative of issues on their end. In contrast, the Wal-Mart employees I used to deal with were almost always pleasant when dealing business with them.


    Sure, and I'll keep using the rebuttal, "And people can always choose other places to shop."
    Wow, you are actually going to hang your hat on Walmart employees being happier? When I was in HS I worked at Walmart. It was one of the most oppressive experiences I'd ever worked and I've worked everything from Assembly lines to million dollar clean room fabs. I would stand at a register for about 8-10 hours a day. If it was busy, all I would get was a lunch for that day, no breaks, and definitely no bathroom breaks. If we complained, we were threatened with being discharged. We would work only 32 hours a week because they didn't want to provide us with any benefits. At the time, I couldn't imagine someone digging themselves out of that cesspool without incurring debt because you could barely support yourself on a Walmart salary.
    04-16-2015 05:42 AM
  24. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You misread what I wrote. I specifically said "...when dealing business with them." I used to work there as well in the stores, so I know what kind of things are said amongst employees during break time. But the attitude on break is much different than the attitude when on the clock and dealing with others.

    And I didn't mind my time at Wal-Mart either. It was just a school time job, not meant to be a career, and I valued it as such. I didn't expect to make top dollar, but I also didn't stay a cashier long either. I moved to different areas that I liked better, sometimes getting raises along with the new position. I dealt with those long hours at the register, but instead of complaining about it, I worked my way into better positions and eventually left the company when ready to move on to bigger and better things.
    04-16-2015 12:07 PM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You misread what I wrote. I specifically said "...when dealing business with them." I used to work there as well in the stores, so I know what kind of things are said amongst employees during break time. But the attitude on break is much different than the attitude when on the clock and dealing with others.

    And I didn't mind my time at Wal-Mart either. It was just a school time job, not meant to be a career, and I valued it as such. I didn't expect to make top dollar, but I also didn't stay a cashier long either. I moved to different areas that I liked better, sometimes getting raises along with the new position. I dealt with those long hours at the register, but instead of complaining about it, I worked my way into better positions and eventually left the company when ready to move on to bigger and better things.
    Instead, now you complain here about unions.
    04-16-2015 02:15 PM
101 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Android Auto first impressions thread (and ask us anything!)
    By Phil Nickinson in forum Android Auto
    Replies: 425
    Last Post: 01-07-2018, 11:04 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-22-2015, 12:53 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2015, 09:47 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD