Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

I think I'm starting to dislike unions...

1234568»

Posts

  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    at the company im currently employed at, union people coerced the employees to vote for the union usually with threats of violence.

    "we know where you live."
    "it would be a shame if something happened to your family."

    i know it sounds like something out of a bad movie, but sadly, it actually occurred. most of the employees who were coerced were too scared to contact the police. the three that filed complaints, including my cousin, were given a "who gives a shit" attitude by the police (who happen to be very close with the local union).

    i really wish i were lying but im not. this union is just a bunch of thugs. a few employees want to get out of it now, but when they tried, they were told that they would still have to pay dues. some provision in the agreement says that they have to continue paying dues to cover the costs of their collective representation that they originally opted for. or something like that. bleh.

    Jesus, if that's the truth...that's awful.

    But what can you do? Go to the media? This only shares one similarity to bad movies, I doubt it'll share the happy sappy end result where the union gets what's coming to it.

    If Ketherial is indeed telling the truth, I would be confident in assuming that his anecdote is not representative of very many union elections. If anti-unionists want to state that unions regularly use threats of violence to force cooperation, the burden of proof is on them.

    big l on
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So, speaking of unions. There have been stories lately on Senator DeMint blocking a TSA appointment as a way to block TSA unionization. What are this thread's thoughts on the unionization of a government organization that isn't subject to market forces competition and is directly related to safety and security (thus needing the ability to hire and fire based on employee performance)?

    My opinions are obvious from the wording of my question. I've always thought Federal unions were ridiculous.

    Darkewolfe on
    What is this I don't even.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    My opinions are obvious from the wording of my question. I've always thought Federal unions were ridiculous.

    why?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    do you lack faith, brother?
    or do you believe?
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    saggio wrote: »
    In Canada, physicians, surgeons, and professors are all generally unionized. This is sometimes over and above professional colleges or organizations such as the bar that act basically as super unions. Not only do they enforce discipline and keep the standards of the practice of the profession high, but they alone determine who is and who isn't eligible to become a member.

    And in America, we have laws governing those practices without the needless hoop-jumping of applying for union membership.

    By law, I have to recertify my licensure and certifications every two years with a skills demonstration, as well as having a mandatory 20 hours of continuing education.

    The union in your instance seems rather superfluous.

    Atomika on
  • MatthasnopantsMatthasnopants Registered User
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    of course the business has the opportunity to respond. It's not as though a card campaign is conducted in secret

    Oh come on, you think given an opportunity a union wouldn't just take the employees out to dinner, tell them that if they sign the cards their wages will go up 100% and have the employees sign the cards right there? That takes one night, how does management possibly have an opportunity to respond? What if the company only has 30 employees? They only need 16 people to sign cards which is easily doable in a day.

    The lag time between the card check and election is vital for BOTH SIDES to present their views to the employees and to have opportunities to rebut the claims of the other side. I'm willing to compromise on the idea that the lag time should be shorter but automatic ratification is beyond reasonable and betrays the fear in unions that they really have very little to offer many of the employees they want to organize and that management can point this out.

    edit: The employer can't make promises because it's part of the law surrounding the process. An employer can't say "if you don't vote the union in I'll raise your wages" and if they do an unfair labor practice violation can be filed with the NLRB, however a union is free to make any promises they want.

    In other words, the proto-union has to schedule time on one day outside of work hours for our hypothetical 16 people to all meet, agree that the union is a good idea, get all the paperwork lined up, and that all this is going to be done in secret without management having any idea what is going on?

    This aside from the fact that it's arguable in the extreme to say that management should even be granted the opportunity to respond. They aren't joining the union, they aren't voting in the election, so I don't see any reason their input should be protected.

    And sure, employers can't say that "if you unionize we'll lower wages" or make whatever other outlandish claims. But they're allowed to talk about what they think the effects of unionization are, and it isn't difficult at all to make whatever point you want without offering guarantees. The idea that union organizers have the freedom to make unreasonable pie in the sky statements isn't really much of a point for your side.

    Even if it were this monumental task to get people to come to a free meal or whatever after work for one day and for them to sign cards, which is the extent of the relevant paperwork, it wouldn't be such a task if it were spread over a few days and if it were happen that quick management would have almost no time to respond. You have to keep in mind that many employers have never dealt with a union before and really don't know how to respond to one so even if it were over three days or so that's still functionally no time for management to prepare a response.

    I know I'm not going to convince you that management should at least be offered the opportunity to speak its mind but I can't fathom how you don't think they deserve at least that. A union being installed at your company makes an enormous difference in the way you run your business to the point where in many situations a union coming in could mean going from profitable to not profitable.

    Yes they're allowed to talk about the effects of unionization but there are very stringent rules surrounding what they can and cannot talk about. Management often has a labor lawyer helping them script these speeches so they don't say anything that can bite them in the ass. Also I don't see how you've refuted the importance of union organizers being able to promise whatever they want.

    Matthasnopants on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I think most unions should stop calling themselves unions. They're more like a parallel corporate entity when you start getting into degree level jobs. Every union I've been in was represented by people who had never actually done a hard days work in their fucking lives. They're just another management tree to climb.

    I don't have a problem with a bunch of workers getting together and going "fuck this shit, we should do something!"

    Everyone thinks they're the most important fucking person in the world. That they are somehow harder working and deserve everything they have. Most of the people I run into certainly feel that way, we have housekeepers who spend their days in the back hall talking on their bluetooth headsets and driving around in Acuras and BMWs. Fuck if you can actually get them to work, because at least where I am, the race/discrimination card is the first one played, next to seniority and "abusive management".

    We've gone through 13 EVS managers since I've been where I am. None of them can do ANYTHING. At some point it's not the managers that are the problem. A few have been damn hard working and have cleaned rooms themselves to get things moving, going through the proper procedures for writing up lazy ass employees, etc... nothing works.

    Unions should be about protecting the rights of workers, not lazy bitches who are occupying a position that someone who actually takes a little pride in their job could easily do a hundred times better. I've been denied full time status four seperate times now because of my union. Yes, I'm bitter.

    They forced a new position open for an employee because she complained of discrimination, she immediately upon getting benefits got a bunch of surgeries then went out on medical leave, for a year. She came back light duty for another 9 months. She quits, her posision vanishes. I'm still suck per-diem.

    Someone who's been there for 23 years retired. Position offered to me was some fucked up 3/4ths full time shift with terrible hours. I decline. Suddenly they transfer someone in who has a shoulder problem and can't do the job to the position and it becomes a full time 7-330 shift.

    I ask about a 12-830 shift and mention that the person in charge had been pushing for one for a while. No one wants to work those hours, until someone finds out it's an extra 2$/hr for shift differential. They take the shift, their original shift vanishes, I can't get it. They work 12-830 for about two months and decide it's yucky and want their first position back, TADA! go UNION!. They go back to a shift that had been dissolved. The 12-830? Gone now too.

    So fuck, I need hours. I ask someone I know in another department if I can work transport for them a few days a week, they're all for it. Papers are all signed, etc. My manager is for it, their manager is for it. Union steps in, I can't work in two cost centers as per diem without paying my dues.... twice. They go to management and force the position closed.

    What the fuck?

    Yes, if I found out I had a week to live, destroying SEIU Local 250 would be right up there on my list.

    edit: I got written up formally for calling someone lazy, and during the meeting they tried to have me fired by making up all sorts of shit about me giving white power salutes and crap. I'm white, my union wasn't touching that with a ten foot pole. Thanks dudes!

    dispatch.o on
  • big lbig l Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    of course the business has the opportunity to respond. It's not as though a card campaign is conducted in secret

    Oh come on, you think given an opportunity a union wouldn't just take the employees out to dinner, tell them that if they sign the cards their wages will go up 100% and have the employees sign the cards right there? That takes one night, how does management possibly have an opportunity to respond? What if the company only has 30 employees? They only need 16 people to sign cards which is easily doable in a day.

    The lag time between the card check and election is vital for BOTH SIDES to present their views to the employees and to have opportunities to rebut the claims of the other side. I'm willing to compromise on the idea that the lag time should be shorter but automatic ratification is beyond reasonable and betrays the fear in unions that they really have very little to offer many of the employees they want to organize and that management can point this out.

    edit: The employer can't make promises because it's part of the law surrounding the process. An employer can't say "if you don't vote the union in I'll raise your wages" and if they do an unfair labor practice violation can be filed with the NLRB, however a union is free to make any promises they want.

    In other words, the proto-union has to schedule time on one day outside of work hours for our hypothetical 16 people to all meet, agree that the union is a good idea, get all the paperwork lined up, and that all this is going to be done in secret without management having any idea what is going on?

    This aside from the fact that it's arguable in the extreme to say that management should even be granted the opportunity to respond. They aren't joining the union, they aren't voting in the election, so I don't see any reason their input should be protected.

    And sure, employers can't say that "if you unionize we'll lower wages" or make whatever other outlandish claims. But they're allowed to talk about what they think the effects of unionization are, and it isn't difficult at all to make whatever point you want without offering guarantees. The idea that union organizers have the freedom to make unreasonable pie in the sky statements isn't really much of a point for your side.

    Even if it were this monumental task to get people to come to a free meal or whatever after work for one day and for them to sign cards, which is the extent of the relevant paperwork, it wouldn't be such a task if it were spread over a few days and if it were happen that quick management would have almost no time to respond. You have to keep in mind that many employers have never dealt with a union before and really don't know how to respond to one so even if it were over three days or so that's still functionally no time for management to prepare a response.

    I know I'm not going to convince you that management should at least be offered the opportunity to speak its mind but I can't fathom how you don't think they deserve at least that. A union being installed at your company makes an enormous difference in the way you run your business to the point where in many situations a union coming in could mean going from profitable to not profitable.

    Yes they're allowed to talk about the effects of unionization but there are very stringent rules surrounding what they can and cannot talk about. Management often has a labor lawyer helping them script these speeches so they don't say anything that can bite them in the ass. Also I don't see how you've refuted the importance of union organizers being able to promise whatever they want.

    The refutation is that employers are massively more powerful than the union. The union can say "Hey, if we don't unionize all this bad stuff will happen!", but the union doesn't have the power to control whether or not that actually happens. It's not a credible threat. Whereas when the employer says "Hey, if you guys unionize, we might have to cut your hours and bring in outside consultants, etc!", the employer actually has the power to carry that threat out. It's not enough to say that both sides have to opportunity to browbeat voters so it's equal, the employer has a decided advantage in power and the unions need to be given a step up to make it fairer.

    big l on
  • MatthasnopantsMatthasnopants Registered User
    edited December 2009
    big l wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    of course the business has the opportunity to respond. It's not as though a card campaign is conducted in secret

    Oh come on, you think given an opportunity a union wouldn't just take the employees out to dinner, tell them that if they sign the cards their wages will go up 100% and have the employees sign the cards right there? That takes one night, how does management possibly have an opportunity to respond? What if the company only has 30 employees? They only need 16 people to sign cards which is easily doable in a day.

    The lag time between the card check and election is vital for BOTH SIDES to present their views to the employees and to have opportunities to rebut the claims of the other side. I'm willing to compromise on the idea that the lag time should be shorter but automatic ratification is beyond reasonable and betrays the fear in unions that they really have very little to offer many of the employees they want to organize and that management can point this out.

    edit: The employer can't make promises because it's part of the law surrounding the process. An employer can't say "if you don't vote the union in I'll raise your wages" and if they do an unfair labor practice violation can be filed with the NLRB, however a union is free to make any promises they want.

    In other words, the proto-union has to schedule time on one day outside of work hours for our hypothetical 16 people to all meet, agree that the union is a good idea, get all the paperwork lined up, and that all this is going to be done in secret without management having any idea what is going on?

    This aside from the fact that it's arguable in the extreme to say that management should even be granted the opportunity to respond. They aren't joining the union, they aren't voting in the election, so I don't see any reason their input should be protected.

    And sure, employers can't say that "if you unionize we'll lower wages" or make whatever other outlandish claims. But they're allowed to talk about what they think the effects of unionization are, and it isn't difficult at all to make whatever point you want without offering guarantees. The idea that union organizers have the freedom to make unreasonable pie in the sky statements isn't really much of a point for your side.

    Even if it were this monumental task to get people to come to a free meal or whatever after work for one day and for them to sign cards, which is the extent of the relevant paperwork, it wouldn't be such a task if it were spread over a few days and if it were happen that quick management would have almost no time to respond. You have to keep in mind that many employers have never dealt with a union before and really don't know how to respond to one so even if it were over three days or so that's still functionally no time for management to prepare a response.

    I know I'm not going to convince you that management should at least be offered the opportunity to speak its mind but I can't fathom how you don't think they deserve at least that. A union being installed at your company makes an enormous difference in the way you run your business to the point where in many situations a union coming in could mean going from profitable to not profitable.

    Yes they're allowed to talk about the effects of unionization but there are very stringent rules surrounding what they can and cannot talk about. Management often has a labor lawyer helping them script these speeches so they don't say anything that can bite them in the ass. Also I don't see how you've refuted the importance of union organizers being able to promise whatever they want.

    The refutation is that employers are massively more powerful than the union. The union can say "Hey, if we don't unionize all this bad stuff will happen!", but the union doesn't have the power to control whether or not that actually happens. It's not a credible threat. Whereas when the employer says "Hey, if you guys unionize, we might have to cut your hours and bring in outside consultants, etc!", the employer actually has the power to carry that threat out. It's not enough to say that both sides have to opportunity to browbeat voters so it's equal, the employer has a decided advantage in power and the unions need to be given a step up to make it fairer.

    But the union is still promising that stuff, it's not like the average line-level employee is going to know the union might not actually do these things all they're hearing is "better wages and benefits, sweet!". Also the example you gave of the employer saying something that they can actually carry out? They're not allowed to say that sort of stuff and if the union finds out they are they will immediately slap them with a ULP charge.

    Matthasnopants on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I read the first page and the last page and I don't really have much to comment on other than:

    I'm generally anti-union, have been in a union (Teamsters), but the worst case scenario i've seen for unions are two:

    Inability to adapt and rent-seeking behavior (adjusting laws and treaties to ensure economic competitiveness for members at the detriment of other economic actors), and public goods and services being unionized to the point of paralysis of the service. A public transit strike amounts to extortion of the tax payer.

    Other than that unions can have a positive influence provided they aren't drunk on their own power.

    mrt144 on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2009
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I read the first page and the last page and I don't really have much to comment on other than:

    I'm generally anti-union, have been in a union (Teamsters), but the worst case scenario i've seen for unions are two:

    Inability to adapt and rent-seeking behavior (adjusting laws and treaties to ensure economic competitiveness for members at the detriment of other economic actors), and public goods and services being unionized to the point of paralysis of the service. A public transit strike amounts to extortion of the tax payer.

    Other than that unions can have a positive influence provided they aren't drunk on their own power.

    You also have the O.J. problem, where a union can be so effective in defending its members that you can't fire anybody.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I read the first page and the last page and I don't really have much to comment on other than:

    I'm generally anti-union, have been in a union (Teamsters), but the worst case scenario i've seen for unions are two:

    Inability to adapt and rent-seeking behavior (adjusting laws and treaties to ensure economic competitiveness for members at the detriment of other economic actors), and public goods and services being unionized to the point of paralysis of the service. A public transit strike amounts to extortion of the tax payer.

    Other than that unions can have a positive influence provided they aren't drunk on their own power.

    You also have the O.J. problem, where a union can be so effective in defending its members that you can't fire anybody.

    More so.

    dispatch.o on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    big l wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    at the company im currently employed at, union people coerced the employees to vote for the union usually with threats of violence.

    "we know where you live."
    "it would be a shame if something happened to your family."

    i know it sounds like something out of a bad movie, but sadly, it actually occurred. most of the employees who were coerced were too scared to contact the police. the three that filed complaints, including my cousin, were given a "who gives a shit" attitude by the police (who happen to be very close with the local union).

    i really wish i were lying but im not. this union is just a bunch of thugs. a few employees want to get out of it now, but when they tried, they were told that they would still have to pay dues. some provision in the agreement says that they have to continue paying dues to cover the costs of their collective representation that they originally opted for. or something like that. bleh.

    Jesus, if that's the truth...that's awful.

    But what can you do? Go to the media? This only shares one similarity to bad movies, I doubt it'll share the happy sappy end result where the union gets what's coming to it.

    If Ketherial is indeed telling the truth, I would be confident in assuming that his anecdote is not representative of very many union elections. If anti-unionists want to state that unions regularly use threats of violence to force cooperation, the burden of proof is on them.

    it is fucking terrible, but i definitely don't think it's representative of many unions (or their elections). my friend is a teacher and she loves her union. they take good care of her and she isnt even very senior.

    but seriously, fuck that union. problem is, im not really sure what can be done. and my cousin is still in it, so there's that. bleh.

    Ketherial on
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Ketherial wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    at the company im currently employed at, union people coerced the employees to vote for the union usually with threats of violence.

    "we know where you live."
    "it would be a shame if something happened to your family."

    i know it sounds like something out of a bad movie, but sadly, it actually occurred. most of the employees who were coerced were too scared to contact the police. the three that filed complaints, including my cousin, were given a "who gives a shit" attitude by the police (who happen to be very close with the local union).

    i really wish i were lying but im not. this union is just a bunch of thugs. a few employees want to get out of it now, but when they tried, they were told that they would still have to pay dues. some provision in the agreement says that they have to continue paying dues to cover the costs of their collective representation that they originally opted for. or something like that. bleh.

    Jesus, if that's the truth...that's awful.

    But what can you do? Go to the media? This only shares one similarity to bad movies, I doubt it'll share the happy sappy end result where the union gets what's coming to it.

    If Ketherial is indeed telling the truth, I would be confident in assuming that his anecdote is not representative of very many union elections. If anti-unionists want to state that unions regularly use threats of violence to force cooperation, the burden of proof is on them.

    it is fucking terrible, but i definitely don't think it's representative of many unions (or their elections). my friend is a teacher and she loves her union. they take good care of her and she isnt even very senior.

    but seriously, fuck that union. problem is, im not really sure what can be done. and my cousin is still in it, so there's that. bleh.

    Uhm. Teachers Union?

    Yeah, those guys are all kinds of fair.

    My union and the nurses union bus people in to protest and go on the line and pay the homeless to walk the line by offering food. They bus them in when the cameras are scheduled to be rolling, then let the homeless roam off and the bus follows the news vans.

    When we go on strike, if we are told to strike, they don't give us strike pay. They collect around 4-4.5k per person in dues during a contract. They can't set aside even 1% to pay someone wage if they strike for a day? Yeah, all about the workers my ballsack.

    SEIU and CNA can suck on a live grenade.

    edit: I don't strike by the way, I think the idea of a health worker going on strike in the name of "patient care" to be ridiculous and they should be treated like scum for doing it. Especially when it's not about patient care. That's the universal slogan they use, patient care. In reality I've never seen anyone complain about something other than they aren't getting a big enough raise, good enough retirement, enough vacation or a good enough health plan. Patient care isn't even in the top 20.

    dispatch.o on
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    at the company im currently employed at, union people coerced the employees to vote for the union usually with threats of violence.

    "we know where you live."
    "it would be a shame if something happened to your family."

    i know it sounds like something out of a bad movie, but sadly, it actually occurred. most of the employees who were coerced were too scared to contact the police. the three that filed complaints, including my cousin, were given a "who gives a shit" attitude by the police (who happen to be very close with the local union).

    i really wish i were lying but im not. this union is just a bunch of thugs. a few employees want to get out of it now, but when they tried, they were told that they would still have to pay dues. some provision in the agreement says that they have to continue paying dues to cover the costs of their collective representation that they originally opted for. or something like that. bleh.

    Jesus, if that's the truth...that's awful.

    But what can you do? Go to the media? This only shares one similarity to bad movies, I doubt it'll share the happy sappy end result where the union gets what's coming to it.

    If Ketherial is indeed telling the truth, I would be confident in assuming that his anecdote is not representative of very many union elections. If anti-unionists want to state that unions regularly use threats of violence to force cooperation, the burden of proof is on them.

    it is fucking terrible, but i definitely don't think it's representative of many unions (or their elections). my friend is a teacher and she loves her union. they take good care of her and she isnt even very senior.

    but seriously, fuck that union. problem is, im not really sure what can be done. and my cousin is still in it, so there's that. bleh.

    Uhm. Teachers Union?

    Yeah, those guys are all kinds of fair.

    My union and the nurses union bus people in to protest and go on the line and pay the homeless to walk the line by offering food. They bus them in when the cameras are scheduled to be rolling, then let the homeless roam off and the bus follows the news vans.

    When we go on strike, if we are told to strike, they don't give us strike pay. They collect around 4-4.5k per person in dues during a contract. They can't set aside even 1% to pay someone wage if they strike for a day? Yeah, all about the workers my ballsack.

    SEIU and CNA can suck on a live grenade.

    edit: I don't strike by the way, I think the idea of a health worker going on strike in the name of "patient care" to be ridiculous and they should be treated like scum for doing it. Especially when it's not about patient care. That's the universal slogan they use, patient care. In reality I've never seen anyone complain about something other than they aren't getting a big enough raise, good enough retirement, enough vacation or a good enough health plan. Patient care isn't even in the top 20.

    If nurses are complaining about having access to a "good enough health plan", that tells me that our health insurance 'system' is fucked up and our labor values are shit.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    big l wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Question: If a shop hasn't unionized yet, exactly what leverage is the "union" using to coerce 50%+1? I keep seeing the word "intimidate" thrown out. How, exactly?

    at the company im currently employed at, union people coerced the employees to vote for the union usually with threats of violence.

    "we know where you live."
    "it would be a shame if something happened to your family."

    i know it sounds like something out of a bad movie, but sadly, it actually occurred. most of the employees who were coerced were too scared to contact the police. the three that filed complaints, including my cousin, were given a "who gives a shit" attitude by the police (who happen to be very close with the local union).

    i really wish i were lying but im not. this union is just a bunch of thugs. a few employees want to get out of it now, but when they tried, they were told that they would still have to pay dues. some provision in the agreement says that they have to continue paying dues to cover the costs of their collective representation that they originally opted for. or something like that. bleh.

    Jesus, if that's the truth...that's awful.

    But what can you do? Go to the media? This only shares one similarity to bad movies, I doubt it'll share the happy sappy end result where the union gets what's coming to it.

    If Ketherial is indeed telling the truth, I would be confident in assuming that his anecdote is not representative of very many union elections. If anti-unionists want to state that unions regularly use threats of violence to force cooperation, the burden of proof is on them.

    it is fucking terrible, but i definitely don't think it's representative of many unions (or their elections). my friend is a teacher and she loves her union. they take good care of her and she isnt even very senior.

    but seriously, fuck that union. problem is, im not really sure what can be done. and my cousin is still in it, so there's that. bleh.

    Uhm. Teachers Union?

    Yeah, those guys are all kinds of fair.

    My union and the nurses union bus people in to protest and go on the line and pay the homeless to walk the line by offering food. They bus them in when the cameras are scheduled to be rolling, then let the homeless roam off and the bus follows the news vans.

    When we go on strike, if we are told to strike, they don't give us strike pay. They collect around 4-4.5k per person in dues during a contract. They can't set aside even 1% to pay someone wage if they strike for a day? Yeah, all about the workers my ballsack.

    SEIU and CNA can suck on a live grenade.

    edit: I don't strike by the way, I think the idea of a health worker going on strike in the name of "patient care" to be ridiculous and they should be treated like scum for doing it. Especially when it's not about patient care. That's the universal slogan they use, patient care. In reality I've never seen anyone complain about something other than they aren't getting a big enough raise, good enough retirement, enough vacation or a good enough health plan. Patient care isn't even in the top 20.

    If nurses are complaining about having access to a "good enough health plan", that tells me that our health insurance 'system' is fucked up and our labor values are shit.

    No, see... they're all for universal healthcare as long as they don't have to use it. It's not good enough for them, but everyone else? All the peasants? Sure!

    Whenever the hospital proposes something ridiculous... like uh, only giving an 17% wage increase over 4 years, they flip the fuck out. Or if they ask people to enroll in a wellness program OR pay a piddly 80$ a month instead they flip the fuck out. They like free healthcare that's probably better than anyone else in the universe. 80$ a month is just ridiculous! I mean, thats almost an hour of work!

    edit: I'm saying work, but it's only the younger ones who actually have to do that. The older ones all sit very comfortably and do as little as they possibly can.

    dispatch.o on
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    So, speaking of unions. There have been stories lately on Senator DeMint blocking a TSA appointment as a way to block TSA unionization. What are this thread's thoughts on the unionization of a government organization that isn't subject to market forces competition and is directly related to safety and security (thus needing the ability to hire and fire based on employee performance)?

    My opinions are obvious from the wording of my question. I've always thought Federal unions were ridiculous.

    I think the deal with not wanting to allow the TSA to unionize is it could lead to the risk that TSA employees would resist future changes in security protocols, in addition to the likelihood that bad employees would be difficult to fire. Seeing as security provided by the TSA is fairly vital, those are good reasons to be concerned about unionizing the TSA.

    On another note, I personally think in the not-too-distant future, unions could experience some interesting changes. For one, in industries based on machinery manufacturing automation [read: robots] will lead to the demise of unions such as the UAW. This won't be terribly widespread outside of building machines though - it's very difficult to automate many kinds of work (like making textile products). Another possible change is in the nature of unions [note: this is just pure speculation on my part]. With the advent of social networking, impromptu employee groups that can form (and dissolve) very rapidly is now a feasible proposition. A union may not need to be a permanent institution to be able to bargain effectively with employers, and this would reduce the chances of corrupt union officials. Again, it's just some speculation on my part, but it may not be such a terrible idea.

    Emissary42 on
1234568»
Sign In or Register to comment.