Obama has once again shown favor to labor unions with his appointment of three union reps on the National Mediation Board of the National Labor Relations Board. Yesterday, the board changed the rules for railroad and airline workers to unionize. Whether you agree with government control of transportation or not, you should pay attention to the favors Obama is repaying.

According to a Fox News report: "What's changed is a 75-year-old rule that required a "yes" vote from the majority of an airline or railroad's entire work force within a "class" or "craft" (such as pilots or flight attendants) in order to unionize. On Monday, the National Mediation Board announced new rules that would only require "yes" votes from the majority of employees who actually cast ballots.

"This rule change... is arguably the most controversial change that the National Mediation Board has ever undertaken, at least in my 30 years of watching the industry," said William "Bill" Swelbar, a research engineer with the International Center for Air Transportation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It appears quite driven by an administration's policy to promote unionization and collective bargaining."

"Supporters say the new union voting procedures for airlines and railroads are no different from those long in place at other industries and, for that matter, democratic elections in general."


Just last month, Obama's executive order encouraging project labor agreements for federal construction projects over $25 million went into law.

In the Wall Street Journal: "The federal rule, which went live yesterday (April 13, 2010), implements an executive order President Obama signed within weeks of taking office. It encourages federal agencies to require 'project labor agreements' for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer.

"Only 15% of the nation's construction workers are unionized, so from now on the other 85% will have to forgo federal work for having exercised their right to not join a union. This is a raw display of political favoritism, and at the expense of an industry experiencing 27% unemployment. "This is nothing but a sop to the White House's big donors," says Brett McMahon, vice president at Miller & Long Concrete Construction, a nonunion contractor. "We've seen this so many times now, and how many times does it have the union label? Every time."


http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...est=latestnews

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

Only 15% of the nation's construction workers are unionized, so from now on the other 85% will have to forgo federal work for having exercised their right to not join a union.

That says it all. They have an agenda and do not care about the majority of Americans. Around 70% of American voters did not want the Obamacare. Do you think he (they) cared?

That is why the Tea Party is getting stronger every day. We will not take this BS no more. The Tea Party will help vote them all out in November!!!!!!

Just for your info; this was changed to allow FedEx to be able to be unionized as they are now in competition with UPS and "over the road carriers" and not with just air freight anymore. There are "FedEx Ground" and "FedEx Freight" that were claiming the "airline exemption" and it's just not fair. The workers of these FedEx companies have a right to organize if they want and the law should not have been misused to prevent this.

The power in this country is money, and the people with the money do not want anyone else to challenge their power.

The biggest threat to this power is the power of the worker to organize.

The biggest threat to the USA is the Liberal Socialist ideology of the Unions.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Just for your info; this was changed to allow FedEx to be able to be unionized as they are now in competition with UPS and "over the road carriers" and not with just air freight anymore. There are "FedEx Ground" and "FedEx Freight" that were claiming the "airline exemption" and it's just not fair. The workers of these FedEx companies have a right to organize if they want and the law should not have been misused to prevent this.

The power in this country is money, and the people with the money do not want anyone else to challenge their power.

The biggest threat to this power is the power of the worker to organize.

We usually agree with many issues but I have to ask you: Are you saying that unions have no blame in our current economical crisis?

(That includes public service unions)

Originally Posted by Donna2

We usually agree with many issues but I have to ask you: Are you saying that unions have no blame in our current economical crisis?

(That includes public service unions)

(First, in the spirit of full disclosure; I'm a retired Teamster with 40 years experience hauling freight on the highways of the Northeast.)

No I'm not Donna, and I don't consider the Public Unions to be in the same class as the Private Unions. Private Unions, like the vast majority of Teamsters represented companies, have to compete in the marketplace and live and die within the capitalist system. If Private Unions overreach, the companies that employ them could fail and the worker could lose his employment. This is something that never happens in public sector unions. When my Union Local lost money through failing investments and lost members, we accepted a reduction in future pensions contributions and higher medical deductibles to protect our funds viability. When has a public union ever had to do that. Teachers and Policemen and Fireman don't live in the marketplace and never expect a reduction of benefits because of hard times. Proof? .... check out Greece.

In the case of the UAW the union did not control the pension fund; they were controlled by management; for example GM, Chrysler and Ford.

GM did not save or invest to fund the negotiated pensions and thought they would sell thousands of cars a day until the end of time to pay this bill.
Well times changed and the bill came due and GM blames the Union.
The Union wasn't negligent in the funding of the pension, it was the short-sightedness of the auto-maker.
Now you can argue that the contract was extravagant and that's another issue, but it was negotiated within the confines of the NLRB and was a valid contract. If the money to fund the contract was, instead, given to the Union, like my contract required, then the failing of the pension could only be faulted to the Union and the auto-maker would be in the clear, without this debt or responsibility to the worker. Then the Union would have had to make the adjustment to the fund if it wanted to remain viable.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but this is an issue I've long had to explain the misconceptions of and I've still only touched the surface.

Good post, RichieLion. Your explanation pointing out the difference between public and private unions is spot on.

I spent the first half of my career as an active member of a construction trade union. I was a local officer serving in different unpaid positions for seventeen of those years, including VP and Executive Board as well as several negotiating committees. Our dealings with signatory contractors was never confrontational and a true symbiotic relationship. We asked for and received more when times were good, relinquished when times were slow. We negotiated rate increases over a set period of time, usually a 1-3 year period. It was up to the membership where to distribute that money – pension, H&W, on the check, etc. just as you have stated. It was mutually destructive for contractors and membership alike to pay/receive monetary increases when the economic climate didn’t justify it. There wasn’t such a thing as tenure, paid vacations and sick days. If you didn’t perform you went down the road, period.

The second half of my career was spent working for the Federal Government, first in the trade shops and finishing in the engineering dept. Even with my strong organized labor history I never did join AFSCME in the 20+ years employed by the Feds. Why? There was little to be gained from membership. Monetary raises/COLAS are automatic, H&W benefits are optional, and pension program Fed contributions are preset with an optional employee contribution component. The work environment was pleasant in my experiences. Combine that with paid holidays, vacations, and sick days what more could you ask for?

It is obvious those who put all unions in the same pot have little experience in that area. “Unions Bad” seems to be the battle cry of the day. Labor is always a soft target because portraying unions as “bad guys” is an easy sell to the generally misinformed public. Thanks for your clarification.

and looking for numbers.

I seen where the government hired 16,000 new people last year during a horrible recession. They said that brought government employees to a staggering 22,516,000 people.

Yes, you read that right, 22 1/2 million people receiving taxpayer paychecks.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I read somewhere that the total number of people employed in USA is around 141,000,000.


Now if I divide 22.5 into 141 I get around 6. That means that 1 in 6 people work for the government (us). My math tells me that 5 people are supporting 1 person. How do we do that?
I hope someone can either correct me or tell me I'm wrong.

I seen where the government hired 16,000 new people last year during a horrible recession. They said that brought government employees to a staggering 22,516,000 people.

Richie, are you satisfied with the representation that Jimmy Hoffa, Andrew Stern, Rich Trumka, Ron Carey et al have given you? It isn't a loaded question. It is asked with all due respect to you and your union brothers and sisters. And, another question I'd like to ask you Richie, how does unionizing help FexEx become more competitive? I do believe people in private labor have every right to unionize when done within the appropriate legal guidelines. But they'd better know what they are getting into is all I can say and don't ask me to bail you out when you don't keep up with what your union reps are doing in Washington.

GREAT discussion on this thread.....just an FYI from this mornings papers..

"The Crippling Price of Public Employee Unions"

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...ee-unions.html

And a snippet from the article...

"There has been a transformation in the nature of our employment. Labor is no longer dominated by private sector industrial workers who were in large part culturally conservative and economically pro-growth. Over recent decades public sector employment has exploded and public workers have come to dominate the labor movement. These public sector employees have a unique and powerful advantage in contract negotiations. Quite simply it is their capacity to deliver political endorsements and votes for the very people who are theoretically on the other side of the negotiating table. Candidates who want to appear tough on crime will look to cops, sheriffs' deputies, prison guards, and highway patrol officers for their endorsement."

It seems to me this article leaves out some pertinent facts. All federal construction projects are covered by prevailing wage and benefit rates determined by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931. These rates are often similar or identical to union wages and benefits. So to a contractor out of pocket expenses are the same.

Secondly, the article states “It encourages federal agencies to require 'project labor agreements' for all construction projects larger than $25 million”. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer.”
“Encourages” is not a mandate. A “project labor agreement” applies to that one job only, not a lifetime commitment. The last sentence “This means that only contractors that agree ….” is erroneous. ANY contractor is eligible as long as requirements such as bonding, stability, etc. are met.

Without a doubt construction unions stand to temporarily benefit in the form of dues and membership. But the fundamental requirements to bid on a federal project have been in place for years and the potential impact of this executive order seem minimal.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Richie, are you satisfied with the representation that Jimmy Hoffa, Andrew Stern, Rich Trumka, Ron Carey et al have given you? It isn't a loaded question. It is asked with all due respect to you and your union brothers and sisters. And, another question I'd like to ask you Richie, how does unionizing help FexEx become more competitive? I do believe people in private labor have every right to unionize when done within the appropriate legal guidelines. But they'd better know what they are getting into is all I can say and don't ask me to bail you out when you don't keep up with what your union reps are doing in Washington.

No BK, I'm not satisfied with present Teamsters Union leadership because I think it has left the worker laboring under the NMFC (National Master Freight Contract) in the lurch. Instead of increasing the scope of freight company organizing and clamping down on carriers who buy or created non-union companies to compete with their own "organized company", the National Board has dropped the ball and gone after easier to organize jobs, for example Hospital employees where you have a contained workforce.

Your question, to me, is reversed. Organizing FedEx, which many many of their employees want because they feel it'll improve their wages and benefits and security, will make UPS more competitive. UPS is the largest Union Company in the U.S., and it's employees have great pay and benefits and a good contract that enables an employee to work with dignity and not be subject to the whims of an overly greedy or capricious management. Now UPS is a money making company, but does not have the advantages of a non-union company like FedEx who can abuse part-time employees; require crazy and changing starting times for employment and generally run rough shod over an employee, if it wants, with no regard for seniority.

Nearly all the benefits the average worker has in the U.S., such as the 8 hour work day; the 40 hour workweek, paid vacation, workplace safety standards and health-care are all the product of years and years of sweat and blood given by the early organizers of our National Unions.

Now I've heard it said that the need for Unions are past and Unions are not necessary anymore. OK, so I guess the businessmen are kinder and more generous and less greedy and more interested in the welfare of the workers who labor for and make a company successful that they were in the past. Do you believe that? All the workers in a non-union company who compete with a unionized company have to thank the Union for being there, because the only reason they make anything close to Union-wages is because of the fear their Employers have of their workers organizing. If the Unions ever disappear, expect the quick downward-slide of the wages of the laborer.

Richie, I say the following with a heck of a lot of respect for you. I like reading all of your posts. You are very intelligent, well spoken and respectful. I am just going to say something for you to think about. It is my opinion and because I know you are thoughtful and very intelligent, I hope you will think about it and not take in any shape, form or fashion as disrespectful.

Before unions and the minimum wage laws in this country, the free market system in America worked and Americans did pretty well for themselves and their families. Even now, how many people in the US are members of trade unions? About 12.3 percent of salary and wage earners are union members and the numbers are declining.

In the overall scheme of life, labor unions benefit their members. And that is fine for union members. But to say their wages benefit others workers isn't really a true statement. In 2009, according to the US Dept. of Labor, "among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $908, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710. (My opinion, that that $710 isn't so bad for nonunion. How much more could good workers earn if their pay was based on performance and productivity?)

"The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million) and New York (2.0 million). About half of the 15.3 million union members in the U.S. lived in just 6 states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million; Illinois, 1.0 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; and Michigan and New Jersey, 0.7million each), though these states accounted for only one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally."

Closed shops deny people a choice and deny people freedoms to do business with whomever they choice. Unions recognize the way to get power is to have the federal government on their side. Why are so many unions headquartered in DC? Federal workers get a great degree of security and lots of fringe benefits.

Government and trade unions protect their workers and their members at someone else's expense. Restriction of entry into an occupation because of unions does so at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. Governments pay workers higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayers.

Free market and competition for the best workers and workers competing for the best jobs results in higher productivity, greater capital investment, greater diffused skills, all this makes the entire free market work at it's best for the benefit of the employers, workers, consumers and taxpayers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Richie, I say the following with a heck of a lot of respect for you. I like reading all of your posts. You are very intelligent, well spoken and respectful. I am just going to say something for you to think about. It is my opinion and because I know you are thoughtful and very intelligent, I hope you will think about it and not take in any shape, form or fashion as disrespectful.

Before unions and the minimum wage laws in this country, the free market system in America worked and Americans did pretty well for themselves and their families. Even now, how many people in the US are members of trade unions? About 12.3 percent of salary and wage earners are union members and the numbers are declining.

In the overall scheme of life, labor unions benefit their members. And that is fine for union members. But to say their wages benefit others workers isn't really a true statement. In 2009, according to the US Dept. of Labor, "among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $908, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $710. (My opinion, that that $710 isn't so bad for nonunion. How much more could good workers earn if their pay was based on performance and productivity?)

"The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million) and New York (2.0 million). About half of the 15.3 million union members in the U.S. lived in just 6 states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million; Illinois, 1.0 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; and Michigan and New Jersey, 0.7million each), though these states accounted for only one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally."

Closed shops deny people a choice and deny people freedoms to do business with whomever they choice. Unions recognize the way to get power is to have the federal government on their side. Why are so many unions headquartered in DC? Federal workers get a great degree of security and lots of fringe benefits.

Government and trade unions protect their workers and their members at someone else's expense. Restriction of entry into an occupation because of unions does so at the expense of other workers who find their opportunities reduced. Governments pay workers higher wages are at the expense of the taxpayers.

Free market and competition for the best workers and workers competing for the best jobs results in higher productivity, greater capital investment, greater diffused skills, all this makes the entire free market work at it's best for the benefit of the employers, workers, consumers and taxpayers.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

I have to vehemently disagree with your first point; as unskilled workers were exploited terribly before the rise of the Unions. I still say it's the fear of their workers organizing that prods employers to offer a more fair wage. Many companies are now abusing the use of part-timers to avoid mandates that have been put in place to protect full-time employees. A Union company would be prevented or restricted in this use and abuse of part-timers to avoid compensating their workers fairly.

Your second point I've already disagreed with above; employers hiring unskilled or semi-skilled workers, say in trucking and construction, and who cut corners in work place safety, would be prevented from doing this by a Union workforce. (e.g. While between jobs, many years ago, I was informed of a Carrier,a small non-union job, needing a few drivers for a big, but temporary job. I went down, and got a position and was directed to a piece of crap relic of a truck that pulled to one side and had really spongy brakes. When I went to the dispatcher to report this, he looked at me and said take it or go home. I really needed the work, but went home because I won't risk my life or someone else's; but someone took that truck out.)

I'm not sure of your figures in your third point, and how many of these people you list are public union employees, as I'm defending private unions, but the bigger cities have more workers and hence a bigger opportunity to organize.

I think "closed shop" is a misnomer. Most companies today, unlike in the Unions heyday, have ultimate control over who they do or do not hire, in my experience. What they do not have, once a worker achieves seniority is the ability to fire a worker without cause. Many Unions are located in D.C. today for the same reason as any lobbying group. Big business and Unions alike are pleading their case before the people who impact their lives and fortunes.

I think you have to spend some time working for a company where you're basically a number before you understand the love of the semi-skilled worker for the Union. In trucking, you may be a good worker, but you're just an ass in a seat, and they can find plenty of other asses to put in that seat if you demand dignity in your job. A construction worker? You think you're the only one who can push a wheelbarrow? I don't think so.

I don't think man's nature has changed much, and man does not share his fortune easily. This is becoming more and more true with, in my opinion, the decline of moral values in this country.