Verizon Union on strike?

[video=youtube;yuQHEIdLv3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQHEIdLv3s[/video]

Can someone better help me understand this. From my understanding it works like this:

A group of people work for verizon, they work in one big organization called a union, they try to use their massive force and dip out of work all at the same time. They believe this will hurt the company so bad that they have no choice but to give them what they want so they come back to work. (what they want being: pay raise or at least not a pay cut, more benefits, retirement pensions)

It appears to me that all these people dipped out of work and now verizon has people who actually want to work and earn money to support their families working in the place of those who chose to leave to try and make a point, thinking they are too good to be replaced.

Now these guys are realizing they're expendable and they're going around harassing people, making threats of violence, pushing their kids in front of cars, getting in front of cars themselves (they're upset they're being hit by cars, explain that one to me), and they've stooped low enough to sabotage some of verizon's equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I have it wrong? I've never worked in a union (and I never will after seeing how these people behave) Can someone break it down for me? I always though in the United States as a business owner you own your business. If you feel that you can't afford or straight up don't want to pay as much as you're paying you can cut pay. If people don't like that they can find new jobs, right? Now one forces anyone to work for verizon. Am I wrong?

Is there anyone in a union that can explain to me their point of view on this? I am always open to other opinions and I honestly want to understand the unions better than I do now. As of now they seem like a bunch of bullies/thugs/cry babies when they don't get to run another person's company.

The "man" using his daughter as a pawn like that should be ashamed of himself; it is despicable behavior.

That man is just trying to feed his child by holding a gun to the head of his employer. He is a terrorist. He does not have the guts to talk to his employer, he holds no cards of his own, so he is harassing the man his employer hired to replace him.

It is like a mugging, but instead of using a gun or a knife, the mugger is saying "give me your wallet, or I will drown this box of kittens".

in every group there are those who push beyond the 'norm'
Just like folks condemning all gun owners because of folks like Cho,
don't condemn all 45,000 striking CWA members because of the actions of a few.

As for the Union strike.
CWA is not fighting to get more money for their members.
They are trying to keep a VERY profitable corporation from screwing their employees ( you know, the folks who's sweat MADE that money) by shifting health care costs to the employees while trying to cut pay and jobs in the quest for even higher profits.
In addition, they want to award those who labored for 30 years and retired with reduced pensions and higher health costs.
While the top tier management pulls down more in one annual bonus than a laborer will make in a 30 year career.

This isn't the first time "Ma Bell" has tried this, they try to pull this same garbage every time a contract is renegotiated.
This ain't our first rodeo.
We've been out as long as 28 days.
Management can't replace 45,000 workers.
Last week in my neighborhood I watched 4 managers spend two days 'trying' to do the work that would take one tech 3 hours to accomplish.
We will stay strong.

A 30 year member of CWA local 2336, and a 30 year employee of V

The right to band together in lawful ways to press for the desires of the group is a natural right.

Unions, on the other hand, do things that are decidedly anti-Liberty. They support legislation that forces workers to join unions. They use dues to donate to candidates that the membership likely would not support without checking with the membership. They use thuggery to achieve their goals (despite any claim that such thuggery is "push[ing] beyond the 'norm'." They support legislation that would make voting for unions non-secret, allowing for intimidation of those who vote against the union. They are monopolistic.

I support unions--unions that allow for union choice, unions that do not use thuggish tactics, unions that are responsive to the membership, unions that respect Liberty, unions that do not exist today. Unfortunately, unions today are beholding to their leadership and their existence, not to their membership or to Liberty.

If CWA wasn't involved, V would have just cut our pay, increased our out of pocket health care expenses, eliminated jobs and sat back laughing as individual workers tried to feed and care for their families.
Unions have become very (almost too) powerful in some cases, but until employers start giving a crap about the folks doing the labor, instead of just focusing on maximum profits and ever increasing CEO bonuses, staying together like schools of fish in shark infested waters is our only method of survival.

If unions had not been involved, I would not have been forced, by an anti-Liberty law, to pay dues that were used, in turn, to fund causes which I oppose at my very core.

Unions today are about force, not about Liberty.

Again, I fully support the right of individuals to band together to fight for what they think is just compensation. I likewise support the right of the corporation to fight for what it believes is the correct amount of compensation it pays. Both can act evilly. Both can act out of goodness. Unions are acting out of self-interest at the expense of membership--which is wrong. Corporations are acting out of self-interest, which, unless it goes against the interests of the ownership, is natural and right.

The idea of unions is pro-Liberty. As they exist in actuality today, unions work against Liberty.

eye95 said:

If unions had not been involved, I would not have been forced, by an anti-Liberty law, to pay dues that were used, in turn, to fund causes which I oppose at my very core.

Unions today are about force, not about Liberty.

Again, I fully support the right of individuals to band together to fight for what they think is just compensation. I likewise support the right of the corporation to fight for what it believes is the correct amount of compensation it pays. Both can act evilly. Both can act out of goodness. Unions are acting out of self-interest at the expense of membership--which is wrong. Corporations are acting out of self-interest, which, unless it goes against the interests of the ownership, is natural and right.

The idea of unions is pro-Liberty. As they exist in actuality today, unions work against Liberty.

Click to expand...

Union dues cannot be used in campaign finance. You must contribute separately through a PAC. I'm a member of a union because it is a necessary evil, however I do not contribute to the PAC because I do not believe in the political philosophy my union preaches.

Schlitz,

What would you do if you walked into work today and your employer said he was reducing your salary and paying you minimum wage?

What would you do if your wife died and your employer said if you did not show up for work you would be fired?

What would you do if you were injured on the job and your employer left you with the bill?

Some issues are covered by law, but that does not stop employers from doing what they want. I am a member of a union. I view unions as a necessary evil. If all employers were fair and just, there would be no need for unions. All are not including the government thus you have union to represent you and hold the employer accountable to the agreed upon contract.

Some unions go too far and some employers go too far.

Schlitz said:

[video=youtube;yuQHEIdLv3s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQHEIdLv3s[/video]

Can someone better help me understand this. From my understanding it works like this:

A group of people work for verizon, they work in one big organization called a union, they try to use their massive force and dip out of work all at the same time. They believe this will hurt the company so bad that they have no choice but to give them what they want so they come back to work. (what they want being: pay raise or at least not a pay cut, more benefits, retirement pensions)

It appears to me that all these people dipped out of work and now verizon has people who actually want to work and earn money to support their families working in the place of those who chose to leave to try and make a point, thinking they are too good to be replaced.

Now these guys are realizing they're expendable and they're going around harassing people, making threats of violence, pushing their kids in front of cars, getting in front of cars themselves (they're upset they're being hit by cars, explain that one to me), and they've stooped low enough to sabotage some of verizon's equipment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I have it wrong? I've never worked in a union (and I never will after seeing how these people behave) Can someone break it down for me? I always though in the United States as a business owner you own your business. If you feel that you can't afford or straight up don't want to pay as much as you're paying you can cut pay. If people don't like that they can find new jobs, right? Now one forces anyone to work for verizon. Am I wrong?

Is there anyone in a union that can explain to me their point of view on this? I am always open to other opinions and I honestly want to understand the unions better than I do now. As of now they seem like a bunch of bullies/thugs/cry babies when they don't get to run another person's company.

Click to expand...

Let me start off by saying that I don't condone alot of what the NYC local is doing up there.

The CWA union that has contracts with verizon hasn't asked for anything new in our contracts for quite some time. This time around is no different. Verizon declard a profit of nearly 16 billion last year, and over 5 billion already this year.

The concessions Verizon wants would be over $20,000 per employee, cutting my effective pay by over 1/3. Total cost savings for Verizon only 1 billion(keep in mind they still make 16 billion AFTER they pay their employees), and yet how much do the CEO's get paid? Again, we are't asking for more, we just want to keep what we have.


Still, I think those guys up north aren't doing themselves any favors... Seems as though they don't realize how fast news gets around with today's technology... This isn't 1970 anymore, everybody has a camera now, ans a within 30 secs the world can see what you did.

And to think that my local union president told me to disarm while picketing cause he's afraid of bad publicity. >.<



Sent using tapatalk

What would you do if you walked into work today and your employer said he was reducing your salary and paying you minimum wage?

Click to expand...

I would be upset, I would probably stick in the job until I could find a better job with possibly higher pay. Certaintly I wouldn't just stop working to complain... That doesn't make sense.

What would you do if your wife died and your employer said if you did not show up for work you would be fired?

Click to expand...

I would continue to work if I valued my job. Crappy situation.

What would you do if you were injured on the job and your employer left you with the bill?

Click to expand...

If the injury occured within the line of duty I would run it "up the chain" and sue if I felt it was neccessary.

Some issues are covered by law, but that does not stop employers from doing what they want.

Click to expand...

I don't think there should be much to stop employers from doing "what they want" since it is their company. Isn't this supposed to be a free country? Sure, it totally sucks if you're employer *&%#s you over, it sucks hard, I'll probably leave a turd in my desk on my last day. My mother always told me growing up that, "lifes not fair." And it's not, crappy situations happen.

Why would you want to work for and support an employer that treats it's employees like crap? That's how I feel. I'm not condoning Verizon treating employees like crap, but if I worked for them I'd be upset and start searching for new work. I wouldn't just walk away from my source of income, that seems silly. Then complain when they hire someone else willing to work to feed their family? Then harass the guy who is trying to make what he can to feed his family since you won't do it? Does that make sense? (I do realize this is not all of the union people, but they are the only ones to be getting posted up on youtube.)

All I'm really seeing right now is a big group of people trying to tell someone how to run their business in what is supposed to be a free country. If I ever run a business and my employees DEMAND this and that I'll probably just fire them. It's my company. That is freedom. If we support freedom on gun rights we need to support freedom on all fronts, no?


Still open to opinions, I understand a subject like this COULD turn into a flame war and I honestly am interested in union point of views

I don't know Schltz, you seem to get it pretty good. You asked if you were wrong, but it seems you have a pretty good grasp on it.

eye95 said:

If unions had not been involved, I would not have been forced, by an anti-Liberty law, to pay dues that were used, in turn, to fund causes which I oppose at my very core.

Unions today are about force, not about Liberty.

Again, I fully support the right of individuals to band together to fight for what they think is just compensation. I likewise support the right of the corporation to fight for what it believes is the correct amount of compensation it pays. Both can act evilly. Both can act out of goodness. Unions are acting out of self-interest at the expense of membership--which is wrong. Corporations are acting out of self-interest, which, unless it goes against the interests of the ownership, is natural and right.

The idea of unions is pro-Liberty. As they exist in actuality today, unions work against Liberty.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Unions are corrupt, quasi-marxist in whom they support, and useless. They ran out of utility in the 1920s.

cyras21 said:

Union dues cannot be used in campaign finance. You must contribute separately through a PAC. I'm a member of a union because it is a necessary evil, however I do not contribute to the PAC because I do not believe in the political philosophy my union preaches.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It seems you don't realize that the Supreme Court overturned the previous rulings that prohibited unions from contributing to election campaigns.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

More:



The "Madison Uprising" is the beginning of the end of the incestuous relationship between government and the unions. That fact has been recognized by the public sector unions and the Democratic Party and is why they have pulled out all the stops and reverted to their 1960's playbook in order to maintain the status quo. However, it is a battle that the unions and the Democratic Party will lose regardless of the immediate outcome in Wisconsin.


The Democratic Party has sold its soul to the public sector unions. In the 2010 mid-term election, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees poured over $87 million dollars into the election. (A new spending record). AFSCME's $87 million was greater than the campaign spending by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million) and American Crossroads ($65 million). Other public sector unions also ratcheted up their spending such as SEIU ($44 million) and the National Education Association ($40 million).


The three major public sector unions spent over $171 million in the 2010 election plus an estimated $250 million equivalent value of so-called volunteer activity such as get out the vote efforts, door-to-door campaigning and poll watching.


There is nothing wrong with private people or organizations, including private unions, spending money on political campaigns as institutional sources are disclosed. However, AFSCME, the NEA, the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) or the public union sector of SEIU are government employees. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayers and a portion of their salaries go to union dues which are slush funds for political activity and the promotion of left-wing causes. In 2008 the NEA and the AFT made contributions and grants totaling over $96 million of union dues; all to liberal organizations irrespective of the desires of the rank and file or the taxpayer.


It is wholly inappropriate for public employees to spend dues money on political contributions. Public officials are chosen through popular elections and the government employee should be indifferent as to the outcome of the election. However, by maintaining such a heavy hand in not only monetary contributions but election activity the politician becomes too dependent upon the union largess and is essentially blackmailed into acquiescing to all the demands of the union, particularly pay and benefits which have sky-rocketed and are now unsustainable.


President Franklin Roosevelt, the Progressive icon, recognized this problem back in 1937. In a letter to Luther Steward, then President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, he wrote that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government". He went on to say that government employees should not have bargaining rights or a closed shop similar to private sector unions.


However, since the public sector unions were granted those rights beginning in the 1960's they have achieved the virtual ownership, together with the private sector unions, of the Democratic Party. In the 2010 election cycle, per the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME donated 99.5% of contributions to Democrats; The NEA donated 96% and the AFT, 99.7%.


These dues were funneled to Democratic candidates who promised to raise workers salaries and hire more public sector workers-even though statistics show that total compensation for federal and state workers is nearly 50% higher than for private sector employees.


Government workers have access to elected officials during negotiations to set wages and benefits and can hold the promise of campaign contributions over these politicians' heads during negotiations. There is, in effect, no one representing the taxpayer who is the source of all income to the government.


This means runaway compensation for government workers, higher taxes for the general public and higher deficits. The taxes go from the electorate to government paychecks to union dues-then to more campaign contributions until the state, municipality or the federal government faces bankruptcy.


The clout of this unholy alliance was further on display when the unions were able to siphon off roughly $160 billion dollars of the 2009 stimulus to save the jobs of state and local workers.


The unseemly goings-on in Wisconsin portray, in microcosm, the disastrous policy of allowing government workers to unionize and bargain for wages and benefits. The unions are fighting to preserve their source of income and clout (i.e. union due) and the Democrats have shown the world their cowardice and dependence by slinking out if the state in order to maintain their bought status.


By these actions they have drawn back the curtain for all to see the true nature of this incestuous relationship and the impact on the future of the country.


It has taken Wisconsin and the near bankruptcy of the country and of many states and municipalities to finally awaken the American people to this fraud and theft. They must demand that public-sector unions can only be associations that can seek better workplace conditions or to facilitate employer-employee disputes but cannot have bargaining rights or mandatory dues.

eye95 said:

If unions had not been involved, I would not have been forced, by an anti-Liberty law, to pay dues that were used, in turn, to fund causes which I oppose at my very core.

Unions today are about force, not about Liberty.

Again, I fully support the right of individuals to band together to fight for what they think is just compensation. I likewise support the right of the corporation to fight for what it believes is the correct amount of compensation it pays. Both can act evilly. Both can act out of goodness. Unions are acting out of self-interest at the expense of membership--which is wrong. Corporations are acting out of self-interest, which, unless it goes against the interests of the ownership, is natural and right.

The idea of unions is pro-Liberty. As they exist in actuality today, unions work against Liberty.

Click to expand...

+1

" We are trying to use the power of persuasion, and if that doesn't work we will use the persuasion of power" - Andy Stern head of SEIU

cyras21 said:

Union dues cannot be used in campaign finance. You must contribute separately through a PAC. I'm a member of a union because it is a necessary evil, however I do not contribute to the PAC because I do not believe in the political philosophy my union preaches.

Click to expand...

If you are paying full dues and are not a "fair share payer"/"beck objector". Then your dues are going to political causes. Maybe not directly to campaigns, but they are used for political means.

If you do not want your dues going to political and other things then you have to make the union recognize you as an "involuntary member". This gives you other benefits to. For instance, some unions fine regular members for working during a strike. If you are an "involuntary" member you cannot be fined.

cyras21 said:

Union dues cannot be used in campaign finance...

Click to expand...

Cite?

eye95 said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

I already did in the negative.

Gunslinger said:

I already did in the negative.

Click to expand...

I noticed. Not to mention that I already knew that unions can and do spend dues money supporting causes I loathe.

I was hoping that the poster in denial of this fact would be forced to acknowledge his lack of knowledge on the subject without my having to specifically accuse him of ignorance.