Unions??? | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
tcoachmc
Stanford Fan
Palo Alto
Member since Dec 2010
916 posts

Unions???


If Unions are as great as these Union thugs say there are. If they are really needed as much as the Dems say they are, what is the big deal with Right To Work? People will still join them right? Why are they getting so upset by people having a CHOICE? I thought libs were all for choice? I mean who wouldn't be all for being FORCED to join something, being FORCED to pay for something they don't want to be a part of, and watching their dues go to political candidates they DON'T support. Sounds fair to me!


This post was edited on 12/12 at 8:12 pm



Back to top
Share:
Bunk Moreland
Michigan Fan
Detroit, MI.
Member since Dec 2010
5829 posts

re: Unions???


Because you already get a vote to be union/non-union. Also, once a union is certified as the bargaining representative, it has to represent everyone, whether they pay a dime or not (in right-to-work states).


This post was edited on 12/12 at 8:14 pm


Back to top
tcoachmc
Stanford Fan
Palo Alto
Member since Dec 2010
916 posts

re: Unions???


So if I move to Michigan, I have to give my freedom up to have a job? I have to agree with things that I REALLY DON'T AGREE WITH? Sounds just like our founding fathers intended! Thank for clearing that up for me.


This post was edited on 12/12 at 8:14 pm


Back to top
Sparty1
Michigan State Fan
East Lansing
Member since Aug 2011
170 posts

re: Unions???


The law should open things up to allow for multiple bargaining representatives. "Freedom to Freeload" has nothing to do with right to work, but everything to do with union exclusivity.





Back to top
Janky
LSU Fan
Team Primo
Member since Jun 2011
7253 posts

re: Unions???


After the November election the results insured that I was going to lose take home pay. You know what I did, I went to bed, woke and went to work. It happens, elections have consequences.





Back to top
BFIV
Member since Apr 2012
1120 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

So if I move to Michigan, I have to give my freedom up to have a job? I have to agree with things that I REALLY DON'T AGREE WITH?


Nope, not at all. If you don't want to pay union dues, that's ok with everyone. Just don't apply for a job at a unionized workplace. If you want to enjoy the benefits and wages of a union workplace, you should also be willing to pay your fair share of union membership dues. Surely you don't expect to enjoy the country club tennis courts, swimming pool, and golf course without paying your fair share of the membership dues? That's what "free riders" do and that is the complaint that the union workers have with this legislation.






Back to top
coonass27
LSU Fan
shreveport
Member since Mar 2008
2492 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

Because you already get a vote to be union/non-union. Also, once a union is certified as the bargaining representative, it has to represent everyone, whether they pay a dime or not (in right-to-work states).


That's true but it never happens that way. If a non union employee is brought in the office for something, the union rep has to sit in but they barley represent. Representing because they have to by law and taking action is two different things. The union (at least the local I had the privilege of working with) only protects the ones who will further their agenda and follow their way.






Back to top
BFIV
Member since Apr 2012
1120 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

. If a non union employee is brought in the office for something, the union rep has to sit in but they barley represent. Representing because they have to by law and taking action is two different things


I somewhat agree with this. A staff rep once told us, "There is representation and there is REPRESENTATION." The union is still bound by labor law to take a non-union member's grievance to arbitration if the grievance can't be settled. This non-union member (free rider) has not paid one cent in union dues to cover the costs of the arbitration. The same people on this board who decry and condemn the Obamaphone and welfare recipients for being lazy and all too willing to take advantage of welfare by not paying their fair share in taxes are, for the most part, now supporting a worker who wants to receive union benefits and wages, but is not willing to pay his fair share to get those benefits. How ironic! There is absolutely no difference in the two examples.






Back to top
coonass27
LSU Fan
shreveport
Member since Mar 2008
2492 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

Nope, not at all. If you don't want to pay union dues, that's ok with everyone. Just don't apply for a job at a unionized workplace. If you want to enjoy the benefits and wages of a union workplace, you should also be willing to pay your fair share of union membership dues


So the union owns GM/ Ford / Chrysler? Because the union "negotiated pay and benefits" that makes it ok for them to require you to pay dues? What happened to the union looking out for the workers? I guess they only mean paying workers. Do you realize that the committeemen, chairman, as well as most other local union employees are still paid their hourly wage by the car manufacturer while they are "negotiating " these wages and walking around politicking? The union dues that are paid go to the union hall, strike fund (which was 200 bucks a week pay if you went on strike) various other things as well as a hefty contribution to the Democratic Party members. Only the high up union officials are paid by the union and most of them still hold their pension and benefits from the auto makers

quote:

Surely you don't expect to enjoy the country club tennis courts, swimming pool, and golf course without paying your fair share of the membership dues


These things you mentioned are private clubs built with private money. They have public places like this that you can play on for free. They aren't built on city donated land with state and federal funding and tax breaks.

quote:

That's what "free riders" do and that is the complaint that the union workers have with this legislation.


No, "free riders" are the ones who will manipulate the system to get what they want. If the union wants to complain about free loaders, they should look no further than their plants to trim some of






Back to top
mtntiger
LSU Fan
Asheville, NC
Member since Oct 2003
9057 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

The same people on this board who decry and condemn the Obamaphone and welfare recipients for being lazy and all too willing to take advantage of welfare by not paying their fair share in taxes are, for the most part, now supporting a worker who wants to receive union benefits and wages, but is not willing to pay his fair share to get those benefits.


Those benefits are not paid by the union. Those benefits are paid by the company, so the union has nothing to do with it.

BTW, the unions shouldn't be allowed to represent those who are not in the union in a right to work state. I once worked in a union shop in Louisiana, and it was AWFUL. Basically, the senior union guys slacked off constantly, did crappy work, and knew there would be no consequences because of their seniority. They made the non-union members lives hell by spending more time looking for things about which to file a grievance than actually doing their owns jobs.

I don't need a freakin' union to bargain for me. I'll make my own deals. Unions are for the lazy and unmotivated.






Back to top
coonass27
LSU Fan
shreveport
Member since Mar 2008
2492 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

This non-union member (free rider) has not paid one cent in union dues to cover the costs of the arbitration


As I stated earlier, union dues do not go to this. All arbitration a are is neogation tools. If GM let's Paul back in to work after he was drunk and punched a co worker, when negations come around GM says I gave the union this this and this so I want workers to stop smoking in the plant.

quote:

The same people on this board who decry and condemn the Obamaphone and welfare recipients for being lazy and all too willing to take advantage of welfare by not paying their fair share in taxes are, for the most part, now supporting a worker who wants to receive union benefits and wages, but is not willing to pay his fair share to get those benefits


I'm sorry but this is not the same. Obama phones are paid for by a government grant as well as taxes from the phone providers. People are double dipped to pay that twice. Being a non union worker, you are not given anything for free at a cost to others. You work the hours and get paid to do it as well as a percentage of your health care (now anyway) The union employees do not get paid less or work for nothing depending just on union contributions to help out their "brothers".

To make that the same thing would be you working your fingers to the bone on an assembly line 60 hrs a week and part of your salary is taken from you and paid to me for sitting at home doing nothing. (This happens a lot, it's called sub pay).






Back to top
BFIV
Member since Apr 2012
1120 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

Do you realize that the committeemen, chairman, as well as most other local union employees are still paid their hourly wage by the car manufacturer while they are "negotiating " these wages and walking around politicking? The union dues that are paid go to the union hall, strike fund (which was 200 bucks a week pay if you went on strike) various other things as well as a hefty contribution to the Democratic Party members


I've never seen a UAW contract so I don't know who pays the negotiating committee wages there. I'll take your word for it, though, since you said the company pays the wages. The union jobs I worked paid the negotiating committeemen and local officers' wages from the local union treasury which was funded from the membership dues. If GM or Ford or whomever is paying those wages, then it's because the company agreed to pay those wages in the contract.

quote:

as well as a hefty contribution to the Democratic Party members.


By federal court decisions, any union member can have that portion of his dues that is normally sent to any political party NOT be withheld from his paycheck or required as part of his membership dues. Most union members don't know this, though.

Very interesting discussion here and I hope you and I and everyone else can at least agree that there is a lot of misinformation and lack of understanding on how a union works and how any union and company interacts before, during, and after a contract is negotiated and ratified or rejected. I really do get the impression that a lot of the anti-union comments and opinions are coming from people who really have never worked in a union environment or ever been union members. I really wish I could sit down face to face with some of the posters and show them where many of their comments and opinions are without true merit, though. There are just too many things that are being presented as fact, when they are only opinions or something they have "heard" from someone. And I will be at least that one person who will admit that abuse has occurred from both sides, union and company, but those abuses have to be taken each case at a time and not painted over with a broad brush that automatically condemns all unions and/or all companies.







Back to top
BFIV
Member since Apr 2012
1120 posts

re: Unions???


quote:

This non-union member (free rider) has not paid one cent in union dues to cover the costs of the arbitration



As I stated earlier, union dues do not go to this.


Maybe that was the case where you worked? Each contract is different. Where I worked the cost of any arbitration was split 50/50 between the company and the union, win or lose. The union share of the arbitration costs were paid for through the union membership dues.
quote:

All arbitration a are is neogation tools


Sometimes this is true. A favorable or unfavorable arbitration decision for either side can establish "precedent" which can be used as a negotiating tool.
quote:

The same people on this board who decry and condemn the Obamaphone and welfare recipients for being lazy and all too willing to take advantage of welfare by not paying their fair share in taxes are, for the most part, now supporting a worker who wants to receive union benefits and wages, but is not willing to pay his fair share to get those benefits



I'm sorry but this is not the same.


I completely disagree with you here. I unquestionably believe it is the same. But that's just my opinion.







Back to top


Back to top




//