Proud to be union?

OC for ME said:

....Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.......

What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?

Click to expand...

Nothing, but you do not have to work for minimum wage if you have an ability your employer wants. Do not force me, as an employer, to pay huge amounts of anything, when I have workers just as skilled who want to do the work for a bit less.

obamacare says the "new" work week is thirty hours.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time


UNIONS KILLED THE TWINKIE

MSG Laigaie said:

Nothing, but you do not have to work for minimum wage if you have an ability your employer wants. Do not force me, as an employer, to pay huge amounts of anything, when I have workers just as skilled who want to do the work for a bit less.

obamacare says the "new" work week is thirty hours.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-anyone-who-works-30-hour-week-now-full-time


UNIONS KILLED THE TWINKIE

Click to expand...

No bad business decisions killed the twinkie, Hostess had been in bankruptcy court twice before, both times the union made massive concessions to their contracts, and hostess still wanted more each time after promising that they could profitable for both bankruptcy sessions if the contracts were re-negotiated.

Hostess was going brankrupt anyway. why would you suspect anything else? those who blame the union overlook (or are ignorant to) the face the bakers union gave hostess what they wanted twice before. saying that conceeding more on the contracts would save hostess is like saying raising taxes will plug the budget deficit, if more money goes to people who don't know what they're doing it won't help anyone.

EMNofSeattle said:

I responded to the claim that unions were established to promote socialism, my response was "yes" because of the conditions that people worked in during the time they were formed would tend to make people sympathetic to socialist ideas.

after the big corporations are done destroying the unions, the workplace safety laws and OSHA are next, and SVG probably believes they should all be abolished anyway, because "The free market" will mandate workplace safety, just like they did circa 1870. no problems at all.

as far as the mimimum wage it's getting their, if every employer suddenly charged only mimimum wage then there would be an uproar, like the frog put in boiling water, they're easing their wages down, or if wages do go up, the banks and federal reserve will simply loosen monetary police until we're all making the inflation adjusted equivelant of minimum wage. but they're doing it slowly so people become normalized to the idea.

Click to expand...

Your premise that if/when unions are abolished, labor laws will then be repealed as a natural consequence from the abolishment of unions. That premise is pure fantasy, boarding on tinfoil hat rhetoric. I hold unions either in a positive nor negative light. Liberty demands that all citizens be free to associate or not as they choose. In right-to-work states there are union shops. Right-to-work is not anti-union it is pro-liberty and pro-citizen. Union security clauses are anti-liberty and anti-citizen.

You may only be armed for self-defense outside of your home (RKBA) after the state grants your request to do so via a carry permit. Or, you may retain your job if you pay the union dues, if you refuse to pay the union dues you will be terminated.

The choice is clear, keep your job or be terminated. The unemployed have the "luxury" of choosing a union shop or a non-union shop. Your continued advocacy of force association places you squarely in the anti-liberty/anti-citizen camp. Good day to you Sir.

sudden valley gunner said:

They shouldn't have. We have had a fairly steady decrease in crime. Why do police demand more every year?

I was told by the fire marshal when he was touring a rather large house I framed. "With the way you build now, you are building us out of work", my reply was "then why are we still paying you?" , the tour ended very shortly.

Click to expand...

Was he suggesting that newer homes do not burn? If so, I would like you to build my next one. Newer homes are far more dangerous than older built homes. Sounds like this guy didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground.

I am a retired member of the National Association of Letter Carriers. I no longer pay dues, nor do I contribute to the political action fund. They supported Obama. I did not.

For what it may be worth to those 71 percent of the "Hispanic" electorate who support the Dem's, Obama, and unions - I offer this little tidbit of history for their consideration:

Back in 1958 my Dad was a card-carrying member of the California Carpenter's union. He was adamantly AGAINST the right to work effort. He was a construction superintendent, and union wages scale had been a great benefit to him.

He got me an Apprentice Carpenter card when I was 16, and I worked as an A.C. under my Dad. The "Mexican-American" construction crew on the job COULD NOT OBTAIN A CARPENTER CARD - apprentice or journeyman. They could only obtain a Laborer card. Everyone of those guys had better carpentry skills than I did. I earned about .25 cents more an hour than a Laborer. That translated into significantly greater disparity in weekly take-home pay in 1958 than today. Those Laborers had families to support.

Pretty sad commentary on union history I think . Things have changed since 1958 - but history speaks for itself.

And yes - this sort of display of extremism by union thugs WILL bring about the destruction of their unions.

Taxpayer money to fed government (Obama) => government (Obama) gives taxpayer money to UAW => union gives dues (formally taxpayer money) to democrats and Obama.

Money laundering scheme.

OC for ME said:

Your premise seems to be that the abolishment of unions would also mean the abolishment of federal laws that mandate workplace safety requirements.

Also, there are laws that mandate the "basic" 40-hour workweek.

What prevents a non-union shop from only paying the federally mandated minimum wage?

Click to expand...

Yea according to his theory, that is only because of unions. He constantly uses examples where the unions take credit for something that was already happening. Much like history books and so many people believe FDR saved us from the great depression.

He also lacks understanding of economics and libertarian philosophy but keeps regurgitating government/union apologist scare tactics that all hell would break loose if we were to get rid of unions and extensive government restriction. Much like the anti's untrue argument about guns.

self preservation said:

Was he suggesting that newer homes do not burn? If so, I would like you to build my next one. Newer homes are far more dangerous than older built homes. Sounds like this guy didn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground.

Click to expand...

He knew what he was talking about. Houses built with modern building standards are less likely to catch fire and burn. I say it's mostly due to the large amount of draft stops and fire rated drywall, cement fiber siding , fire resistant insulation we use. Also fire sprinklers are dropping in cost and many homes we build are voluntarily installing them. Plus wiring is much less likely to cause a fire in modern homes.

I'm stuck in a Union at my current job I hate it. All they do is take 2% of my paycheck and I have nothing to show for it. A co worker went to the union office a few months back and had to wait while they found someone that spoke English and even then the person was clue less about the issue. Granted this is the first union I've been in but I'm not impressed.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

EMNofSeattle said:

I responded to the claim that unions were established to promote socialism, my response was "yes" because of the conditions that people worked in during the time they were formed would tend to make people sympathetic to socialist ideas.

after the big corporations are done destroying the unions, the workplace safety laws and OSHA are next, and SVG probably believes they should all be abolished anyway, because "The free market" will mandate workplace safety, just like they did circa 1870. no problems at all.

as far as the mimimum wage it's getting their, if every employer suddenly charged only mimimum wage then there would be an uproar, like the frog put in boiling water, they're easing their wages down, or if wages do go up, the banks and federal reserve will simply loosen monetary police until we're all making the inflation adjusted equivelant of minimum wage. but they're doing it slowly so people become normalized to the idea.

Click to expand...

Ok...so two "wrongs" make a right? (labor abuses and socialism) The labor conditions that existed in the late 1800's and early 1900's do not exist here, and are illegal.

It is wrong to force a worker to join a union (and pay dues) when the worker does not wish to join. Period. End of story. If union membership is so great, then a "scab" working in a mostly union shop will decide they want to join...if not, they won't. Let the worker do their own cost-benefit on union membership.

But, as with most things socialist, they do NOT benefit the worker as much as they benefit the ones in charge (union bosses), they are not there to promote liberty or freedom (except for the union bosses) and they most definitely are not there to help ensure the long-term viability and profitability of the company. Spin it as you wish, unions are not a good thing on just about any level.

EMNofSeattle said:

............remember, if the big business owners had just played fair the first time around their would be no such thing as unions. unions are nessecary even today. just read up Wal-Marts issues, having been sued many times for forcing employees to work off the clock, locking employees in with no means to leave the store, refusing to give senior employees more then 34 hours to avoid paying benefits.

but that never happened to me, beucase if it did then UFCW local 21 would've stood up for me...............

Click to expand...

That stuff has never happened to me either, because if it did, I would have stood up for MYSELF.
Other than the hour cap, those things you describe are illegal.

EMNofSeattle said:

.......if you're so against union shops then don't work for a union shop and you wont have to join.............

Click to expand...

One could just as easily say "dont like working off the clock? dont like being locked in the store?Then dont work here". (these statements would be just as wrong)

EMNofSeattle said:

........don't like a union shop then don't work in one, you have that option.............

Click to expand...

And what do you do when you are working and perfectly happy being non-union. Then the thugs come in and lie to people and intimidate them into signing their cards.

When this happened to me, I did not tell my co-workers who wanted the union "if u want union, go to a union company." I said " If you wish to delegate your right of negotiation to a third party organization then go ahead, just don't ask me to do the same."

I should have the right to not use their services and represent myself. the majority should not be able to vote away the rights of a minority.

Now they have taken over. I am forced to pay their extortion fees, My compensation package has DECREASED, and I have watched the overall quality of service provided go down, this has resulted in us losing clients.

The union refuses to provide me with certain information they are required by law to provide.

Let all shops be "open" instead of forcing one to pay dues, the union should convince people while the dues are worth the cost. A union is a company with a service, if they convinced me their service was worth the cost I would be happy to pay. If dues were voluntary then this would only make unions work harder for their workers instead of working to empower themselves.

If they were able to show me the money was going ONLY to collective bargaining, and not their political causes, it would be a great first step.
The truth is the union with which I have had experience cares only about advancing the cause of collectivism.

badger54 said:

I'm stuck in a Union at my current job I hate it. All they do is take 2% of my paycheck and I have nothing to show for it. A co worker went to the union office a few months back and had to wait while they found someone that spoke English and even then the person was clue less about the issue. Granted this is the first union I've been in but I'm not impressed.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Is it a private sector company? if so you can reduce your dues a bit by sending a "letter of resignation". This will reduce your dues to an amount that (in theory) is a pro-rata share of collective bargaining and grievance adjustment. My dues were reduced from 2% of gross to 1.48% of gross.

Here is a sample letter [url]http://www.nrtw.org/a_3_p_a.htm [/URL]
I would suggest either hand delivering it to the union office (with video and audio), or sending it certified mail return receipt requested.

For more information about your rights you can visit http://www.nrtw.org/

Are you in the SEIU 6 by any chance?

Is there a hotdog vender's union that can protect this guy against violent, ignorant, and stupid union thugs? I bet Jimmy Hoffa is proud.

http://mobile.mlive.com/advannarbor/pm_103352/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CSkiQfMh

EMNofSeattle said:

But federal labor law does not allow for that, if a union is certified for a worksite then they must represent a worker even if he's not a member.

Click to expand...

COMPLETELY untrue.

They are ALLOWED to be "exclusive agents".

They're not REQUIRED to.