Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 4 of 5 « First 2 3 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   Question for union members and ex union (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/question-union-members-ex-union-52681/)

Guest 05-03-2012 02:00 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487749)
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 05-03-2012 02:02 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487800)
IMHO, This is an outstanding post!
Thank you so much. I was hoping for some feedback on what I'd written.

Guest 05-03-2012 02:11 PM
"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 05-03-2012 02:18 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487769)
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 05-03-2012 02:33 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487870)
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 05-03-2012 03:01 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487460)
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 05-03-2012 03:07 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487894)
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 05-03-2012 03:08 PM
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

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 05-03-2012 03:34 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487879)
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 05-03-2012 03:46 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487897)
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 05-03-2012 03:47 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487907)
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 05-03-2012 03:57 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487894)
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 05-03-2012 04:07 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487914)
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 05-03-2012 04:30 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487927)
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 05-03-2012 04:32 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 487927)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:03 AM.
Page 4 of 5 « First 2 3 4 5
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.