Question for union members and ex union

[Guest]

folks.

With the Presidents recess appointments to the NLRB, he further strengthens those groups and of course as a result South Carolina was penalized for being a right to work state and lost jobs.

In addition, as I understand it, since Obamas legislation to take away the secret ballot in union votes failed, "the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules."

I am posting two links, one from

RealClearPolitics - A Cynical Process (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/01/a_cynical_process_114005.html) and the other..

"http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/may/02/tdopin01-wrong-on-right-to-work-ar-1883388/

BOTH oppose this new regulation and cite how the "new" NLRB has top flight chances to kill job growth,

My question and it is a serious question...

WHY DOES A LABOR UNION NEED NAMES AND HOME ADDRESSES FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE AND DENY THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO PROTECT THEIR EMPLOYEES VIOLATION OF PRIVACY ?

[Guest]

Obviously the unions don't need these names they want these names so as to intiimidate employees into becoming union members. Obama is also working with the airlines on consolidations because the unions are in favor of same. Unions have not evolved since the 1940's and hence have become an albatross as respects varius industry's ability to compete.

[Guest]

I support Unions.

[Guest]

I support Unions.

Thats fine, but what I am asking is why the union would need this information in anyway and would not support workers right to privacy ??

Not a trick question or a set up......but wondering why from those who support unions

[Guest]

just like asking those who support Obama care about the built in rampant costs.....the responses are noteable.....by their absence!

btk

[Guest]

Thats fine, but what I am asking is why the union would need this information in anyway and would not support workers right to privacy ??

Not a trick question or a set up......but wondering why from those who support unions


My only guess is that the Unions, after getting the requisite number of signed cards to force an election, want the opportunity to send correspondence to all the employees to rally them to their cause with solid information of the issues of employee importance, and not just the rumors that are normally abundant. An advantage a company has over the unions.

I don't think Union reps should be blind visiting employees, but I see no harm in providing addresses for the purpose of mailings, especially if it’s after the requisite number of employes have signed on to legally force a representative vote.

I don’t think this is too much to ask for.

The government in years past has made it more and more difficult for Unions to organize labor for better wages and benefits. They've forced the Unions to organize piecemeal, meaning each separate company location, instead of company wide referendums as was the way it was done in the past. This makes it easy for corporations to divide and separate it's employees by threatening to close a location that dares to entertain the idea of organizing, all the while knowing the rest of the company can hum along regardless of what the employees of the targeted location do.

The issue of “card check” is always only reported from the side of the corporate entities. The Unions are depicted as “thugs” who may violently prey on employees of companies that have employees seeking union representation.

Nobody ever depicts the corporate entity as thuggish as it threatens employees who are tired of being underpaid and overworked and under appreciated with the loss of their livelihood if they as so much as consider voting for union representation.

I’ve been involved in elections for union representation, and there’s no end to the dirty tricks and labor violations a company will commit in order to halt an election or terrorize it’s employees in advance of a ratifying vote.

Card Check would have gone a long way to eliminating bullying tactics by avaricious corporations.

[Guest]

Obviously the unions don't need these names they want these names so as to intiimidate employees into becoming union members. Obama is also working with the airlines on consolidations because the unions are in favor of same. Unions have not evolved since the 1940's and hence have become an albatross as respects varius industry's ability to compete.

What's your experience with unions as you label them "albatrosses"?

I was a Teamster for over 40 years and we've agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality.

Not all unions are stereotypical.

[Guest]

I support unions.

[Guest]

Let's see, Democratic Presidents appoint people to the NLRB who are favorably inclined towards unions and labor organization. Policies and regulations tends to follow the same pattern. When Republican Presidents hold the appointment powers, the table gets turned.

Is all this that hard to figure out?

[Guest]

I support Unions.

Of course you do.

[Guest]

What's your experience with unions as you label them "albatrosses"?

I was a Teamster for over 40 years and we've agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality.

Not all unions are stereotypical.I support unions.Aha! We have bi-partisan consensus! That may be a first in this forum in recent memory!

[Guest]

Aha! We have bi-partisan consensus! That may be a first in this forum in recent memory!

Just to clarify; I'm a former member and supporter of private sector unions.

The public sector unions?; that's a different kettle of fish.

[Guest]

Just to clarify; I'm a former member and supporter of private sector unions.

The public sector unions?; that's a different kettle of fish.

Richie, my misunderstood pal, employees of the Federal government have several unions they can choose to represent them. There is the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) and several more. HR offices have a person who is a specialist in labor relations to deal with the unions.

Unions in government are valuable for the employees - and it is not in setting salaries. It is useful in cases concerning merit promotion, disclipinary actions, reassignments, transfers, equal employment opportunity, discrimination based on sex or race, or many other issues.

Unions can be a pain in the butt for HR offices to work with but they have helped employees in many situations.

[Guest]

Just to clarify; I'm a former member and supporter of private sector unions.

The public sector unions?; that's a different kettle of fish.

public sector union active emps and retirees have "agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality." TOO!

[Guest]

Richie, my misunderstood pal, employees of the Federal government have several unions they can choose to represent them. There is the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) and several more. HR offices have a person who is a specialist in labor relations to deal with the unions.

Unions in government are valuable for the employees - and it is not in setting salaries. It is useful in cases concerning merit promotion, disclipinary actions, reassignments, transfers, equal employment opportunity, discrimination based on sex or race, or many other issues.

Unions can be a pain in the butt for HR offices to work with but they have helped employees in many situations.

not only helped emps - they protected them from politically hostile non-union management! unions have also helped management when union emps failed to improve thru a pattern of progressive discipline and the union could only support the emp's termination!

[Guest]

snipped

In addition, as I understand it, since Obamas legislation to take away the secret ballot in union votes failed, "the NLRB leadership has imposed new requirements that employers supply union organizers with the names and home addresses of every employee. Nor do employees have a right to decline to have this personal information given out to union organizers, under NLRB rules."

I am posting two links, one from

RealClearPolitics - A Cynical Process (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/01/a_cynical_process_114005.html) and the other..

"http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/rtd-opinion/2012/may/02/tdopin01-wrong-on-right-to-work-ar-1883388/

BOTH oppose this new regulation and cite how the "new" NLRB has top flight chances to kill job growth,

My question and it is a serious question...

WHY DOES A LABOR UNION NEED NAMES AND HOME ADDRESSES FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE AND DENY THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO PROTECT THEIR EMPLOYEES VIOLATION OF PRIVACY ?

bucco - i cruised thru the nlrb website and could not find any information to support the allegations as you posted them or as described in the articles you provided.

the closest i came to even finding a reference to home addresses is as follows: "current: The final voter list available to all parties contains only names and home addresses, which does not permit all parties to utilize modern technology to communicate with voters.
proposed: Phone numbers and email addresses (when available) would be included on the final voter list."
Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet | NLRB (http://nlrb.gov/Proposed%20Amendments)

it appears that home addys are already provided in the representation process.

if you can come up with a specific rule change, i'd be happy to read it and comment.

[Guest]

bucco - i cruised thru the nlrb website and could not find any information to support the allegations as you posted them or as described in the articles you provided.

the closest i came to even finding a reference to home addresses is as follows: "current: The final voter list available to all parties contains only names and home addresses, which does not permit all parties to utilize modern technology to communicate with voters.
proposed: Phone numbers and email addresses (when available) would be included on the final voter list."
Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet | NLRB (http://nlrb.gov/Proposed%20Amendments)

it appears that home addys are already provided in the representation process.

if you can come up with a specific rule change, i'd be happy to read it and comment.

Then I have been misinformed and you need to write to Thomas Sowell directly :)

I just read it with my daily read and found it interesting....if it is wrong then we should really and honestly write to him on it.

[Guest]

THIS from US News and World Report...

"Few federal agencies have worked as hard to disrupt the economic recovery as the National Labor Relations Board, a five-member body created in 1934 to oversee union representation elections and to investigate and propose remedies where unfair labor practices are found to exist.

""We keep our eye on the prize," Pearce said in January while promising, as supporters of Enzi's effort have put it, to force employers to make confidential employee information—including phone numbers and E-mail addresses—available to union organizers. This, of course, would expose them to harassment, intimidation, and potentially worse."

Obama's Renegade NLRB Is Disrupting the Recovery - Peter Roff (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2012/04/20/obamas-renegade-nlrb-is-disrupting-the-economy)

[Guest]

Richie, my misunderstood pal, employees of the Federal government have several unions they can choose to represent them. There is the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) and several more. HR offices have a person who is a specialist in labor relations to deal with the unions.

Unions in government are valuable for the employees - and it is not in setting salaries. It is useful in cases concerning merit promotion, disclipinary actions, reassignments, transfers, equal employment opportunity, discrimination based on sex or race, or many other issues.

Unions can be a pain in the butt for HR offices to work with but they have helped employees in many situations.

public sector union active emps and retirees have "agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality." TOO!

I know what you're saying but the realities are different for public and private. When there's no profit motive, things are different and no amount of relating good work done is applicable to what I'm discussing.

Profit (cash) is not created by employees of public unions in order to facilitate and demonstrate their value, and that's just a fact of life.

All renumeration received by public employees is extracted from the private sector. You might say as a loyal public sector employee that the services you provide is just being paid for, but that's a stretch and a half, as taxpayers have no choice in the matter, and little say in the "purchase".

I know some states, as Florida has under the leadership of Rick Scott, been a little successful in scaling back some union employees benefits. I'm not sure what Gov. Scott did, but usually it's a form of "blackmail", where the employees agree to "givebacks" in order to avoid threatened layoffs, or even elimination of a department. In many unionized states this doesn't work as the workers have "tenure rights" and are just reassigned.

[Guest]

Then I have been misinformed and you need to write to Thomas Sowell directly :)

I just read it with my daily read and found it interesting....if it is wrong then we should really and honestly write to him on it.

6/11 Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet
Proposed amendments to NLRB election rules and regulations fact sheet | NLRB (http://nlrb.gov/Proposed%20Amendments) - much easier reading than:
December 22, 2011 representation election procedures (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 80138)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-22/pdf/2011-32642.pdf
[but much more enlightening!]

then there is - s.j.r. 36 - haven't found results data on this joint resolution to overturn everything - but obama has said he will veto it if they do!

in my book - this entire "ambush" is a train wreck - for all sides! having participated in organizing efforts, the reduced timelines are far more detrimental to the union, the business and the employees.

thomas sowell's opinion is really over the top! there are bigger problems in these amendments than what he selected - they just aren't as attention-getting.

[Guest]

I know what you're saying but the realities are different for public and private. snipped

i don't think you do know whay we're saying - neither buggy nor i are saying anything about salaries! i am pointing out that regardless of private OR public, unions provide protections for members as well as employers. and public unions are making the same concessions private unions are are for their survival.

[Guest]

i don't think you do know whay we're saying - neither buggy nor i are saying anything about salaries! i am pointing out that regardless of private OR public, unions provide protections for members as well as employers. and public unions are making the same concessions private unions are are for their survival.

You have not been on this forum long enough to know that some of the very conservative posters (Wubers) get their marching orders each and every day from Fox News. They use the same phrasing that Fox Noise uses, they have the same regurgitated thoughts that Fox Noise has implanted in them, and basically the Wubers have no originality when it comes to political ideas.

The misinformation they have on public unions is all garnered from the talking heads on Fox Noise. Just overlook their biased viewpoints and realize they have been misinformed and therefore either ignore their rantings or just thank them for making you laugh at their nonsense.

Thank you, RichieLion.

[Guest]

You have not been on this forum long enough to know that some of the very conservative posters (Wubers) get their marching orders each and every day from Fox News. They use the same phrasing that Fox Noise uses, they have the same regurgitated thoughts that Fox Noise has implanted in them, and basically the Wubers have no originality when it comes to political ideas.

The misinformation they have on public unions is all garnered from the talking heads on Fox Noise. Just overlook their biased viewpoints and realize they have been misinformed and therefore either ignore their rantings or just thank them for making you laugh at their nonsense.

Thank you, RichieLion.

Buggy, I'm getting very offended by this nonsensical Fox News B.S. You know it's B.S.

I'll quit the forum if you provide any direct evidence of FOX News saying exactly what I said about unions.

Put up, or shut up. I'm not kidding.

[Guest]

i don't think you do know whay we're saying - neither buggy nor i are saying anything about salaries! i am pointing out that regardless of private OR public, unions provide protections for members as well as employers. and public unions are making the same concessions private unions are are for their survival.

The vast majority of public unions are definitely not making the concessions the private unions are making. No way, Jose.

Fine, I agree that the union's representation is important, but the playing field is like night and day in regard to private and public unions.

This is why the Teamster's are rapidly organizing as many public employee groups as they can in order to survive, because the jobs are way more stable because there is no "profit god" to serve.

You may be able to convince the general public, but I was involved with the Union for over 40 years, and you have nothing to teach me.

[Guest]

Aha! We have bi-partisan consensus! That may be a first in this forum in recent memory!

Nah.....I support public unions. :laugh:

[Guest]

Buggy, I'm getting very offended by this nonsensical Fox News B.S. You know it's B.S.

I'll quit the forum if you provide any direct evidence of FOX News saying exactly what I said about unions.

Put up, or shut up. I'm not kidding.

Buh-bye. :laugh:

[Guest]

Just to clarify; I'm a former member and supporter of private sector unions.

The public sector unions?; that's a different kettle of fish.

Why is public sector different? OK for us to work Holidays for nothing extra? What makes a Teamster anything better? Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Teamsters I mostly heard whining from them.

[Guest]

You have not been on this forum long enough to know that some of the very conservative posters (Wubers) get their marching orders each and every day from Fox News. They use the same phrasing that Fox Noise uses, they have the same regurgitated thoughts that Fox Noise has implanted in them, and basically the Wubers have no originality when it comes to political ideas.

The misinformation they have on public unions is all garnered from the talking heads on Fox Noise. Just overlook their biased viewpoints and realize they have been misinformed and therefore either ignore their rantings or just thank them for making you laugh at their nonsense.

Thank you, RichieLion.

The one piece of FOX parroting I'm sick of is the snarky "Really?". Someone gives a point of view and wham "Really?" :yuck:

[Guest]

Why is public sector different? OK for us to work Holidays for nothing extra? What makes a Teamster anything better? Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Teamsters I mostly heard whining from them.


posh -
i guess some folks just have a very short-sighted interpretation of solidarity if all they can do is hang their hat on the difference between public an private sector.

i never had to deal with teamster unions but my husband did - and they were USELESS in supporting the little local they picked up that he was in! i did more with establishing and implementing a salary payment and increase schedule for their employees!

[Guest]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/public-sector-unions-choke-taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

[Guest]

Why is public sector different? OK for us to work Holidays for nothing extra? What makes a Teamster anything better? Having been on both sides of the negotiating table with Teamsters I mostly heard whining from them.

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

[Guest]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/public-sector-unions-choke-taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

First of all, this ISN'T FROM FOX NEWS!!

Second of all, there is no mention of my primary point in comparing the negotiating for contracts in the different worlds of public and private sector unions.

In other words, you failed, and might I add, miserably so.

[Guest]

First of all, this ISN'T FROM FOX NEWS!!

Second of all, there is no mention of my primary point in comparing the negotiating for contracts in the different worlds of public and private sector unions.

In other words, you failed, and might I add, miserably so.

... I do not think so. I will take that ice-cold Yeungling next time at the watering hole.

Hit them long, straight, and not too often.

[Guest]

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/public-sector-unions-choke-taxpayers.html




I guess John Stossel copied RichieLion's ideas. Don't leave, Richie! Please stay!

It wouldn't open for me. Pray tell.

[Guest]

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

at least private unions still have the opportunity to bargain collectively...unlike some public unions - nj, wi, ct, etc.

[Guest]

Only talking about negotiating in different economic realities. Private sector unions have to negotiate in the reality that the businesses their members work for have to turn a profit to remain in business, and if the business fails, so do the members employed.

This is not the reality of a public union's negotiations. It's plain and simple and should be obvious to even the most casual observer.

I not speaking to workplace protections, just the stark realities of negotiating with one union have much to lose in over demanding, and one union where this is a remote consideration.

When the pension program changes out of the blue and workers have less than they started with, that's a problem that all workers should have sympathy for IMO.

[Guest]

When the pension program changes out of the blue and workers have less than they started with, that's a problem that all workers should have sympathy for IMO.

That definitely is true. Some years ago, one of the major airlines went bankrupt and out of business. It was Eastern, I think. Some of their retired pilots were getting about $6,500 per month in retirement pay. Not too shabby, if you ask me. However, when the company declared bankruptcy, the pensions were cut back to around $1,000 per month. That would be a shock to go from $78,000 per year to $12,000 per year.

[Guest]

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

[Guest]

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

Public sector has management just like private sector. Those managers need to watch spending (GSA, Presidential Vacations, Layers of Management) easily come to mind. Those workers that have been promised things need to be budgeted for and new expenditures need to be curtailed if not paid for.

[Guest]

Public sector has management just like private sector. Those managers need to watch spending (GSA, Presidential Vacations, Layers of Management) easily come to mind. Those workers that have been promised things need to be budgeted for and new expenditures need to be curtailed if not paid for.

Ok....now I never worked in the public sector, and I assume that any pensions or long term liabilities are included in any deficit numbers, and I also understand how you would plan on a pension that was promised....what kind of attitude then do you have when you see deficits and spending just going through the roof ?

When I peruse candidates who spend but also support unions, they get the endorsement. Is that not counter productive ?

Again, not trying to set anybody up....just trying to come to grips with this as if I were a public union member, and saw spending just going through the roof along with deficits, it would bother anyone but a public union member should even be more moved by those occurences...Yet, that does not seem to be the case with union backing ?????

[Guest]

Good question. Sure, if taxes are raised, government union employees would have to pay higher taxes.

Salaries of government workers are not part of union negotiations. Federal government unions are mainly for employee protection in promotions, demotions, and prohibited personnel actions.

I do not know all the details since I never was a labor relations specialist and I never belonged to one of the unions since I was in personnel.

[Guest]

Ok....now I never worked in the public sector, and I assume that any pensions or long term liabilities are included in any deficit numbers, and I also understand how you would plan on a pension that was promised....what kind of attitude then do you have when you see deficits and spending just going through the roof ?

When I peruse candidates who spend but also support unions, they get the endorsement. Is that not counter productive ?

Again, not trying to set anybody up....just trying to come to grips with this as if I were a public union member, and saw spending just going through the roof along with deficits, it would bother anyone but a public union member should even be more moved by those occurences...Yet, that does not seem to be the case with union backing ?????

Management change comes to mind.

[Guest]

Management change comes to mind.

Management changes as in elected officials who are doing the spending?

[Guest]

Management changes as in elected officials who are doing the spending?

Of course, and their friends from Academia Land.

[Guest]

My only guess is that the Unions, after getting the requisite number of signed cards to force an election, want the opportunity to send correspondence to all the employees to rally them to their cause with solid information of the issues of employee importance, and not just the rumors that are normally abundant. An advantage a company has over the unions.

I don't think Union reps should be blind visiting employees, but I see no harm in providing addresses for the purpose of mailings, especially if it’s after the requisite number of employes have signed on to legally force a representative vote.

I don’t think this is too much to ask for.

The government in years past has made it more and more difficult for Unions to organize labor for better wages and benefits. They've forced the Unions to organize piecemeal, meaning each separate company location, instead of company wide referendums as was the way it was done in the past. This makes it easy for corporations to divide and separate it's employees by threatening to close a location that dares to entertain the idea of organizing, all the while knowing the rest of the company can hum along regardless of what the employees of the targeted location do.

The issue of “card check” is always only reported from the side of the corporate entities. The Unions are depicted as “thugs” who may violently prey on employees of companies that have employees seeking union representation.

Nobody ever depicts the corporate entity as thuggish as it threatens employees who are tired of being underpaid and overworked and under appreciated with the loss of their livelihood if they as so much as consider voting for union representation.

I’ve been involved in elections for union representation, and there’s no end to the dirty tricks and labor violations a company will commit in order to halt an election or terrorize it’s employees in advance of a ratifying vote.

Card Check would have gone a long way to eliminating bullying tactics by avaricious corporations.

IMHO, This is an outstanding post!

[Guest]

at least private unions still have the opportunity to bargain collectively...unlike some public unions - nj, wi, ct, etc.

Now, that's a point we can agree on.

The states are trying to protect themselves from the public unions with the push to ban collective bargaining. I support the public unions in their fight on this, but I also understand why it's frowned on in many municipalities.

[Guest]

IMHO, This is an outstanding post!

Thank you so much. I was hoping for some feedback on what I'd written.

[Guest]

"Nobody ever depicts the corporate entity as thuggish as it threatens employees who are tired of being underpaid and overworked and under appreciated with the loss of their livelihood if they as so much as consider voting for union representation."

You won't find that on the news or in print but readers of labor history and many family members of the old ones know about Shenandoah PA, Detroit, Mi, the Burroughs of New York and many more. They carry that strength with them every day in the mills, mines and roadways. They know the thugs.

[Guest]

Interesting conversation and for me enlightening.

I hope I present this correctly, but my question revolves around the public and private factors with unions.

In the private sector, a company who begins to "bleed", suffer losses, or whatever that might effect the workers need to address the WHY and HOW of that loss and if necessary share with the workers and negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated.

In the public sector as with the current situation where government spending is just going through the roof, and ANY adjustments to be made, whether it is raising taxes OR cutting costs, the union members will be effected. They need to pay higher taxes, if that would be the response, etc.

Does this attitude of a county, state, whatever being able to pay forever because profit and loss is not an issue become part of the bargaining on either side ? Meaning if a union pushes for higher pensions than the private sector, do they not realize that it will only be a matter of time or do they look at the entity with which they are negotiating as a body that can do it forever...any realities set in ?

This is an honest question...I tried to frame it so that no bias would be apparent. It appears to me that the government is looked upon as somebody to whom the private problems can not ever happen ???

The way it seems to me is that when a private company if failing, the union workers know that regardless the cause; be it economic recession, or more efficient and/or cheaper competition, or even the incompetence of current company management; they must come to terms with these realities and explore a negotiated relief with the corporation or face the reality of corporate collapse, and their jobs disappearing.

In the public sector this is not the reality. When the municipality is over budget and costs are too high, the normal thing is for municipal board to hold meeting, discuss the situation and agree that tax increases are in order.

It has to get to an unusual and really critical stage of an angry public looking for political heads to roll, for that normal scenario to become untenable.

[Guest]

The way it seems to me is that when a private company if failing, the union workers know that regardless the cause; be it economic recession, or more efficient and/or cheaper competition, or even the incompetence of current company management; they must come to terms with these realities and explore a negotiated relief with the corporation or face the reality of corporate collapse, and their jobs disappearing.

In the public sector this is not the reality. When the municipality is over budget and costs are too high, the normal thing is for municipal board to hold meeting, discuss the situation and agree that tax increases are in order.

It has to get to an unusual and really critical stage of an angry public looking for political heads to roll, for that normal scenario to become untenable.

That's not always the way, the low hanging fruit are the workers. Slash and burn them. Always the simple solution in the public sector.

[Guest]

What's your experience with unions as you label them "albatrosses"?

I was a Teamster for over 40 years and we've agreed to changes in work rules and changes in health plans and pension plans in order to survive in the new reality.

Not all unions are stereotypical.

Richielion: Let me start here I was forced to join unions (state law) when I first discharged from the navy. I worked for the steelworkers and for the teamsters. My experiences taught me that the union bosses worked to feather bed jobs, demand compensation and benefits increases "just because" having nothing to do with productivity increase or increase in skills. Many of these guys were thugs.

When I went to work in the insurance industry the Teamsters tried to force a union on insurance companies. at one of the meetings the spokesperson said if they don't meet our demands were going to start breaking winshields. He apparently had no idea that we insured windshields. enough said here.

I apologize if I have offended you or any union members but this is what I witnessed Once I finished college I booked leaving my fate to me. Perhaps your experiences were different. Frankly , I hope my experiences with unions was the exception and not the rule

In retrospect, I wishedI had not have expressed my belief here

[Guest]

Richielion: Let me start here I was forced to join unions (state law) when I first discharged from the navy. I worked for the steelworkers and for the teamsters. My experiences taught me that the union bosses worked to feather bed jobs, demand compensation and benefits increases "just because" having nothing to do with productivity increase or increase in skills. Many of these guys were thugs.

When I went to work in the insurance industry the Teamsters tried to force a union on insurance companies. at one of the meetings the spokesperson said if they don't meet our demands were going to start breaking winshields. He apparently had no idea that we insured windshields. enough said here.

I apologize if I have offended you or any union members but this is what I witnessed Once I finished college I booked leaving my fate to me. Perhaps your experiences were different. Frankly , I hope my experiences with unions was the exception and not the rule

In retrospect, I wishedI had not have expressed my belief here

I, and many other thinking people here, appreciate your expression of beliefs here.

You've actually worked in it, which means a lot more than what some ideologue like Obama decides upon.

[Guest]

This is from April of this year...

"More than half of local and state employees continue to work under pay freezes, while others are accelerating their retirements or facing the prospects of layoffs as the effects of the recession linger on the public sector, according to a survey released on Wednesday."

Layoffs, freezes, retirements for U.S. public sector | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/us-usa-states-workers-idUSBRE83H1DW20120418)

So, if understanding RICH and POSH correctly.....two ways to avoid this. Raise taxes, or cut spending !

What I am still a bit confused about is under all these circumstances, and my wife was a union member (teacher) why then do unions support folks that say they support the union but also are the big spenders who will then have no problem in raising taxes ? Had that situation with the teachers union a number of years ago in PA.

I really appreciate the responses to what may be a ridiculous question but why unions support certain candidates sometimes intrigues me.

Thanks for sharing !!!

[Guest]

That's not always the way, the low hanging fruit are the workers. Slash and burn them. Always the simple solution in the public sector.

In my experience it's not hard to lay off a worker. I worked in trucking which is a "shape up" industry. You worked in order of seniority relative to the number of loads going out that day, or to be picked up. Once you were in the upper half of seniority you were pretty much "guaranteed" a day's pay every day you showed up.

I wasn't speaking to ordinary non-work, or lay-off situations, but to a company that was falling into the economic pit because of nondiscretionary expenses.

The Teamsters Union allowed the largest unionized freight company in the country to abstain from paying contracted pension benefits for 2 years in order to be able to throw that money back into the business. The men lost all that contribution into their pensions at no small sacrifice. That company was able to weather the storm, and the hope is that they will continue to do so with the adjusted rate of pension contributions that are now in effect once more.

[Guest]

I really appreciate the responses to what may be a ridiculous question but why unions support certain candidates sometimes intrigues me.

Thanks for sharing !!!

The unions generally support the Democrat Party because that party is more apt to address the concerns of the Union than the Republicans. It's really that simple. All the rest of the political claptrap? I'm not sure of the importance.

President Obama's DOJ also quietly ended that agency's never ending investigation into "union corruption" The union had been forced to pay the salaries and benefits of these "review boards" that they also had to house in order for these investigators to monitor them. It was long overdue that this ended, but as we know, once the government gets a foothold, it's hard to dislodge them. So, the Teamsters are indebted to President Obama.

[Guest]

In my experience it's not hard to lay off a worker. I worked in trucking which is a "shape up" industry. You worked in order of seniority relative to the number of loads going out that day, or to be picked up. Once you were in the upper half of seniority you were pretty much "guaranteed" a day's pay every day you showed up.

I wasn't speaking to ordinary non-work, or lay-off situations, but to a company that was falling into the economic pit because of nondiscretionary expenses.

The Teamsters Union allowed the largest unionized freight company in the country to abstain from paying contracted pension benefits for 2 years in order to be able to throw that money back into the business. The men lost all that contribution into their pensions at no small sacrifice. That company was able to weather the storm, and the hope is that they will continue to do so with the adjusted rate of pension contributions that are now in effect once more.

The long gray line of transportation. Eastern Trucking, McLain? (Double Diamonds) Consolidated, Time/DC, Halls Motor, Smiths Transfer. On and on. Then deregulation occurred. Men that go day and night, snow, freezing rain, fumes and back breaking unloading to only lose what they worked a lifetime for. Anybody remember what a bull gang was?

[Guest]

Richielion: Let me start here I was forced to join unions (state law) when I first discharged from the navy. I worked for the steelworkers and for the teamsters. My experiences taught me that the union bosses worked to feather bed jobs, demand compensation and benefits increases "just because" having nothing to do with productivity increase or increase in skills. Many of these guys were thugs.

When I went to work in the insurance industry the Teamsters tried to force a union on insurance companies. at one of the meetings the spokesperson said if they don't meet our demands were going to start breaking winshields. He apparently had no idea that we insured windshields. enough said here.

I apologize if I have offended you or any union members but this is what I witnessed Once I finished college I booked leaving my fate to me. Perhaps your experiences were different. Frankly , I hope my experiences with unions was the exception and not the rule

In retrospect, I wishedI had not have expressed my belief here

I'm guessing this was many years ago. Things have drastically evolved and changed in recent years. Deregulation changed everything.

[Guest]

The long gray line of transportation. Eastern Trucking, McLain? (Double Diamonds) Consolidated, Time/DC, Halls Motor, Smiths Transfer. On and on. Then deregulation occurred. Men that go day and night, snow, freezing rain, fumes and back breaking unloading to only lose what they worked a lifetime for. Anybody remember what a bull gang was?

I remember them all and many many more. (It was McLean, by the way) A lot of them went out of business and a lot of them merged or were absorbed, and the names disappeared that way.

I've only heard the phrase "bull gang" down at the piers. Any group of "lumpers" working the ships and containers could be considered a bull gang.

I was in the Union before deregulation of the industry (under Democrat Pres. Carter; did you know that?) and I witnessed the conflagration it caused first hand. I was there when we could shut the country down with a nationwide strike. Times have sure changed.

[Guest]

I remember them all and many many more. (It was McLean, by the way) A lot of them went out of business and a lot of them merged or were absorbed, and the names disappeared that way.

I've only heard the phrase "bull gang" down at the piers. Any group of "lumpers" working the ships and containers could be considered a bull gang.

I was in the Union before deregulation of the industry (under Democrat Pres. Carter; did you know that?) and I witnessed the conflagration it caused first hand. I was there when we could shut the country down with a nationwide strike. Times have sure changed.

Yep the names of trucking companies gone are endless. Dereg started under the Carter administration with the birth of the Contract Carrier. Many an ICC Practitioner changed coats to Transportation Contracts during that period. Many ambulance chasers picked the bones of companies that bought into those contracts siting ICC regs etc etc. It was a mess. Yes the bull gangs were the lumpers on the docks. If you were a teen wanting to make a few bucks we went to the freight company docks and would unload a few hours while the union men slipped off for whatever. They would pay us some cash.

[Guest]

I remember them all and many many more. (It was McLean, by the way) A lot of them went out of business and a lot of them merged or were absorbed, and the names disappeared that way.

I've only heard the phrase "bull gang" down at the piers. Any group of "lumpers" working the ships and containers could be considered a bull gang.

I was in the Union before deregulation of the industry (under Democrat Pres. Carter; did you know that?) and I witnessed the conflagration it caused first hand. I was there when we could shut the country down with a nationwide strike. Times have sure changed.

Yes Mclean, how I could forget that, but you know about age. Thanks.

[Guest]

First, I know i will probably take some heat for this but I am in favor of Unions. I worked in the private sector for a small company for years. I left because after 10 years I was paid less than the bosses daughter who just graduated from High School and spent most of the work day shopping. I took a job in a union shop and never looked back. The point I wanted to make is that just because you are a union worker and your union endorses a candidate that doesn't mean you have to vote for that candidate. A union worker still has the right to vote for whoever they want. I am registered as an independent and will vote for whoever I feel will represent me the best. I think some on this forum think that union voters blindly vote for who the union endorses and I am here to tell you that you are incorrect. I still have the option of voting for who I want in this country and so far my vote counts just as much as yours. Thanks for giving me a place to vent.

[Guest]

First, I know i will probably take some heat for this but I am in favor of Unions. I worked in the private sector for a small company for years. I left because after 10 years I was paid less than the bosses daughter who just graduated from High School and spent most of the work day shopping. I took a job in a union shop and never looked back. The point I wanted to make is that just because you are a union worker and your union endorses a candidate that doesn't mean you have to vote for that candidate. A union worker still has the right to vote for whoever they want. I am registered as an independent and will vote for whoever I feel will represent me the best. I think some on this forum think that union voters blindly vote for who the union endorses and I am here to tell you that you are incorrect. I still have the option of voting for who I want in this country and so far my vote counts just as much as yours. Thanks for giving me a place to vent.


Good post.....and I was the one who mentioned the endorsements.

I can tell you from practical experience, my wife surely didnt vote as the union tried to mandate. Actually, and might be embarassing, she probably voted just the opposite.

I was just curious how actual members felt about it....I know the days of members simply pulling the lever they were told to pull are over, or at least I hope so. My dad and my wife's dad were both steelworkers from Pa and they told stories from way back when the were pretty much told emphatically how to vote and right outside the booth.

I hope that stuff doesnt exist any longer, but thanks for a great post. I started this thread to learn from others on here and I did...thank you

[Guest]

First, I know i will probably take some heat for this but I am in favor of Unions. I worked in the private sector for a small company for years. I left because after 10 years I was paid less than the bosses daughter who just graduated from High School and spent most of the work day shopping. I took a job in a union shop and never looked back. The point I wanted to make is that just because you are a union worker and your union endorses a candidate that doesn't mean you have to vote for that candidate. A union worker still has the right to vote for whoever they want. I am registered as an independent and will vote for whoever I feel will represent me the best. I think some on this forum think that union voters blindly vote for who the union endorses and I am here to tell you that you are incorrect. I still have the option of voting for who I want in this country and so far my vote counts just as much as yours. Thanks for giving me a place to vent.

Thanks, I agree and I was shocked to learn that one of our Conservatives here was a Teamster. Ya never know and that's a good thing.

[Guest]

Thanks, I agree and I was shocked to learn that one of our Conservatives here was a Teamster. Ya never know and that's a good thing.

I'm guessing you might mean me, and no, I haven't voted for a union endorsed candidate in quite a few years.

I'm an American, first; a husband and father, second; a Teamster, third, and a Christian all the time.

[Guest]

Thanks, I agree and I was shocked to learn that one of our Conservatives here was a Teamster. Ya never know and that's a good thing.

Since we are all "coming out" and I want no abuse for this....I worked (NON teamster) for a regional carrier...Highway Express...bought by Maislin out of Canada. WAY back I think in early 70's !!!

[Guest]

I'm guessing you might mean me, and no, I haven't voted for a union endorsed candidate in quite a few years.

I'm an American, first; a husband and father, second; and a Christian all the time.

and I wasn't being derogatory please believe me. I was refreshed by your background and your commitment to real values. It was a great revelation.

[Guest]

Since we are all "coming out" and I want no abuse for this....I worked (NON teamster) for a regional carrier...Highway Express...bought by Maislin out of Canada. WAY back I think in early 70's !!!

I remember the Maislin thing. They took over a chit load of carriers. Brother we probably have plenty to talk about.

[Guest]

I remember the Maislin thing. They took over a chit load of carriers. Brother we probably have plenty to talk about.

Worked in the home office and was offered a job in Montreal, but after considering....said no and went on my way, but was an interesting time. I can recall the traffic guys getting headaches over the ICC routes etc. The owner of the company asked me once to do a look see at who he might buy but in those days, laying the ICC regulations over everything to determine if the other carrier would "fit" !! It was really confusing at times.

[Guest]

Worked in the home office and was offered a job in Montreal, but after considering....said no and went on my way, but was an interesting time. I can recall the traffic guys getting headaches over the ICC routes etc. The owner of the company asked me once to do a look see at who he might buy but in those days, laying the ICC regulations over everything to determine if the other carrier would "fit" !! It was really confusing at times.

Those routes were crazy, the over laps, gateways, all that jazz. The railroad, now that was rich. Firemen on diesels.

[Guest]

Worked in the home office and was offered a job in Montreal, but after considering....said no and went on my way, but was an interesting time. I can recall the traffic guys getting headaches over the ICC routes etc. The owner of the company asked me once to do a look see at who he might buy but in those days, laying the ICC regulations over everything to determine if the other carrier would "fit" !! It was really confusing at times.

Maislin eventually took over Gateway Trucking around that time, and then Quinn, if I remember correctly.

[Guest]

and I wasn't being derogatory please believe me. I was refreshed by your background and your commitment to real values. It was a great revelation.

I was offended in the least. I caught more grief for my political beliefs from my fellow workers in the driver's room of my old job than I do here.

I did win a nice amount of coin from some fellow drivers who bet me that George W. Bush would not win reelection. The "Bush Hate" was palpable and so they were "easy marks".

Some of the sweetest moments ever. You never saw such angry guys digging in their pockets to pay up. I made sure to catch them in very public locations so that they'd be an audience for me.