Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
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.

[Unions] Time to get Fired...up?

tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
Since there was some news, and the old thread is >100 pages. Here's a new thread to discuss unions.

So what's so great about unions. Well, pretty much no mater how big of a fuck up you are. You get to keep your Job.

In my personal experience with it, say you are a shitty library worker a a local community college. You regularly go on hour lunches, leaving your coworkers in the lurch. Go wander around the campus talking to friends for 40 minutes on trips to the mail room that is 5 min away. Come in late, leave early. Hide in your office rather than help students. You don't know how to check out materials to students despite working there for 13 years, refuse to follow basic procedures, and are generally so worthless that your 2 co-workers, also union employers, complain about you to management and keep logs of your various absence. If you keep this up for 6 months, a note is attached to your file. Which you can then appeal.

But lets go a bit bigger.

Say you are a cop looking for an armed 6ft+ 300lb black male in a gray Nissan Titian. And because your a god damn idiot, you shoot 103 rounds into a blue Toyota Tacoma with two Hispanic women inside(or ram and shoot a Black Honda Ridgeline with a white guy in it). Now if you or I did this we'd go to jail for 2 counts of attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon, or some other such charge. But if you are an LAPD cop, you not only are free from jail. You get to keep your job, driving around a city with a gun on the tax payers dime.http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/police-officers-who-shot-two-innocent-women-103-times-wont-be-fired/357771/

Say you are a teacher in NYPS, and you start sexually harassing your female students. Man that's gonna get you fired for sure, right? Nope, instead of being fired, you are sent to a 'reassignment room' where you can do pretty much whatever you feel like, and still get pay/healthcare/pension benefits. http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/one-year-on-the-job-13-years-in-rubber-room-earns-perv-teacher-1m/

Why is this? Because here is the process to fire a teacher.
teacher_fire_chart.jpg




Anyways on to the news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/california-teacher-tenure-laws-ruled-unconstitutional.html?_r=0
LOS ANGELES — A California judge ruled Tuesday that teacher tenure laws deprive students of their right to an education under the state Constitution. The decision hands teachers’ unions a major defeat in a landmark case, one that could radically alter how California teachers are hired and fired and prompt challenges to tenure laws in other states.

“Substantial evidence presented makes it clear to this court that the challenged statutes disproportionately affect poor and/or minority students,” Judge Rolf M. Treu of Los Angeles Superior Court wrote in the ruling. “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”

...


In the ruling, Judge Treu agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that California’s current laws make it impossible to get rid of the system’s numerous low-performing and incompetent teachers; that seniority rules requiring the newest teachers to be laid off first were harmful; and that granting tenure to teachers after only two years on the job was farcical, offering far too little time for a fair assessment of their skills.

Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students’ constitutional right to an equal education, he determined.

“All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child’s in-school educational experience,” Judge Treu wrote in his ruling. “There is also no dispute that there are a significant number of grossly ineffective teachers currently active in California classrooms.” ...

ruling http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/court-decision-in-vergara-v-california/1031/

It's a pretty interesting ruling.

The ruling was that in essence that the laws requiring: Tenure after 18 months, The exhaustive firing procedure, and Last In First Out layoff rules, create a mass of ineffective teachers that prevent students from receiving their education, and these teachers are more likely to be in minority districts.

It's pretty novel framing the argument in the Brown/Butt language. And while there will certainly be appeals, I don't know what exactly they can be. You'd essentially have to argue that either:
These grossly ineffective teachers don't exist.
The laws don't contribute to their retention.
They aren't disproportionately in minority districts.
All 3 of which seem like pretty hard positions to back up.

How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
Lanlaorn
«13456774

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    Or, you could point out that the reason the weakest teachers wind up in minority districts is because of the absolutely asinine local funding system in use in the US which gives wealthier districts more resources to work with, which is further compounded in California by the utterly ruinous giveaway to corporations that is Proposition 13.

    In addition, you could point out that the way teaching as a profession is treated in the US is absolutely reprehensible, and only survived for as long as it did thanks to having half the population limited to teaching as the best possible profession available to them.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    shrykelonelyahavaShadowenHacksawGnome-Interruptustimspork's ghostJobless AnarchistFiendishrabbitMagellEncKaputaLord_AsmodeusDesktop HippiehawkboxVegemyteKristmas Kthulhu
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    I never liked the whole "it's hard to fire teachers that's why there are bad ones" argument.
    Every job I've ever worked has had those terrible bare minimum employees who skate by. Some of them even completely unfireable, not because of a union but because they won at office politics. Being able to fire employees willy-nilly doesn't do anything to guarantee employee quality. That takes competent management and generous compensation.

    You want better teachers? Pay them and their administrators more money.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    AngelHedgieCaptain MarcusPanda4YouCptKemzikshrykeArdollonelyahavaShadowenHacksawRedTideJuliusQuiddescForarSkeithJusticeforPlutoMaclayMan in the MistsjoshofalltradesJobless AnarchistEdith UpwardszagdrobDisruptedCapitalistMagellEncLord_AsmodeusElaroDesktop Hippiejakobagger38thDoeEl MuchohawkboxStabbity StyleVegemyteKristmas Kthulhu
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    I personally am working at a factory that is explicitly anti-union. Given how low the morale (chiefly due to extremely excessive overtime and common 7 day work weeks) is here I can't imagine a union making things any worse.

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    The elementary school I attended as a child had a small class for mentally disabled children, paid for by the county. Several years ago there was a minor scandal- the teacher in charge of the children had been physically abusing them. The union stepped in and the teacher was given a new job teaching at the local technical school.

    However

    The fact remains that for every 1 headline-grabbing story about a bad teacher that the union protects, there are also 10 good teachers working silently in the background whose jobs the union protects. Teachers are paid a pittance in proportion to the work and stress they are asked to take on, and removing union protection would be a mistake.

    Captain Marcus on
    ISIS delenda est
    mcdermott21stCenturyBloodySlothMaclayGnome-InterruptusCalicaEdith UpwardsKaputaDesktop Hippie
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    I'm going to preemptively warn this thread that it needs to stay on-topic. This isn't going to be for discussing teachers or education specifically, nor for discussing police or crappy policing specifically; it's for discussing unions. Please keep the conversation appropriately tethered.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    SloKuari999
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Shadowhope21stCenturyiTunesIsEvilCorehealerAl_watApothe0sisshrykeArdollonelyahavaIncenjucarHacksawSkeithMahnmutArthilGnome-InterruptusThe AnonymousJobless AnarchistEdith UpwardszagdrobSicariiKaputaLord_AsmodeusDesktop HippiekaortijakobaggerKristmas Kthulhu
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    Panda4YouDis'iTunesIsEvilAl_watApothe0sisshrykeArdollonelyahavaIncenjucarShadowenSkeithMahnmutHachfaceMaclayGnome-InterruptusThe AnonymousMan in the MistsJobless AnarchistEdith UpwardszagdrobKaputaLord_AsmodeusDesktop HippiekaortijakobaggerMysstKristmas Kthulhu
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    The Enderlonelyahavaenc0rePLADesktop Hippiejakobagger
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Well, they don't print articles about the times when things run smoothly. It's only when something breaks down does it make the news.

    Speaking of news, the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, announced that he would be taking $2.4 billion from the state's pension fund to pay for a $2.7 billion budget shortfall. The people whose pensions are being taken are suing him, including the Professional Firefighters Association of New Jersey and the Fraternal Order of Police. A hearing on the lawsuits will be held on June 25th.

    I support the unions in their fight (robbing Peter to pay Paul is nuts) but I have a bad feeling about the hearing. Mr. Christie has not been known to shy away from strong-arm tactics, and despite his being currently under investigation I wouldn't put it past him to twist some arms.

    ISIS delenda est
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    I agree but what I mean is money being donated to the political parties / funding politicians. This is starting to slant into another topic though.

    Edit - As opposed to "employees vs. employers."

    Henroid on
    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    As much as my mom hates the teacher's union and her shitty union rep (the Home Ec teacher because guess who has a lot of time on her hands?) her experience as a private school teacher was that horrible people get retained because of personal contacts and there are little to no possible avenues for defense against abuse. She went from being actively persecuted by her principal at a private institution to annoyed by the fact that some of her dumber coworkers still got nice benefits at a public one.

    As much as it's easy to stew about the assholes you work with, it's far better to have some defense against management.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    Captain MarcusAiouaCptKemzikAl_watSiskaArdolGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsDesktop Hippiejakobagger
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    I agree but what I mean is money being donated to the political parties / funding politicians. This is starting to slant into another topic though.

    Edit - As opposed to "employees vs. employers."

    How is that different? Employers do the exact same thing through their advocacy groups. (PACs, trade orginizations, &c.)

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    Apothe0sisShadowenEdith UpwardsKristmas Kthulhu
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    Knuckle DraggerElvenshaeAgahnimSnowbear
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I feel it's hard to separate, especially in the public sector, legitimate union activities from rent seeking. Donating millions of dollars to the reelection campaigns of the person who is then supposed to appoint the people who sit across the table an negotiate on the public's behalf is unbelievably corrupting. It is why so many of the give aways to unions tend to be these massive long term balloons like pensions and health care. Your members give me millions in funds today, and then in 20 years when I'm out of office, you get millions more in pension obligations, with sick time payout, and full medical from retirement till medicare kicks in etc.

    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    I agree but what I mean is money being donated to the political parties / funding politicians. This is starting to slant into another topic though.

    Edit - As opposed to "employees vs. employers."

    well no, I think directly funding politicians or parties is essential to any union in America since money the only way to gain influence in our political system.

    There can be no separation between the economic arena of "employees vs employers" and the political arena

    Apothe0sisshrykeArdolShadowenGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsKaputajakobaggerKristmas Kthulhu
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    No you didn't.

    I mean, you had to pay them regardless, but you didn't have to join the union itself.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    enc0reJust_Bri_ThanksAgahnim
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    No you didn't.

    I mean, you had to pay them regardless, but you didn't have to join the union itself.

    I thought this differed from state to state?

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    I agree but what I mean is money being donated to the political parties / funding politicians. This is starting to slant into another topic though.

    Edit - As opposed to "employees vs. employers."

    well no, I think directly funding politicians or parties is essential to any union in America since money the only way to gain influence in our political system.

    There can be no separation between the economic arena of "employees vs employers" and the political arena

    Well I'm not against hearing why, so can you explain this more? For the moment I disagree. I do think it's possible for unions to take action against wrongdoing or unfair treatment by the employer, the easiest example being strikes, without involving any level of government.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.



    Skip to 2:32

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    No you didn't.

    I mean, you had to pay them regardless, but you didn't have to join the union itself.

    I thought this differed from state to state?

    Sure, in some states you don't even have to pay the union if you don't join. That's the infamous "right to work" which is more of a "right for unions to slowly wither and die".
    But not being forced to join the union (de jure anyway) is federal law.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    enc0reJust_Bri_ThanksEdith Upwards
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    No you didn't.

    I mean, you had to pay them regardless, but you didn't have to join the union itself.

    ... If I'm not joining why would I owe them any money?

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    mcdermottElvenshaeSkeithSmrtnik
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    No you didn't.

    I mean, you had to pay them regardless, but you didn't have to join the union itself.

    ... If I'm not joining why would I owe them any money?

    Because otherwise it's impossible for unions to exist. See: "right to work" states.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    Nope, you in fact did not.

    http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Ok let's try to get out ahead of this.

    No one can be forced to join a union.

    No one has to be in a union to be hired.

    Unions are advocacy organizations. You pay them to represent your interests, right or wrong. Like a lawyer.

    I had to join the Teamsters when I worked for UPS this past Christmas. It wasn't an option. It was "sign up or leave and good luck."

    Nope, you in fact did not.

    http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

    ... Fuck my fucking life man, I swear to god.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
    ArthilNbsp
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Puerto Rico has been in a crisis for several years. A Congressional law passed in 2006 ended a scheme that gave Federal tax credits to companies that made a profit in Puerto Rico, and they promptly jumped ship, sinking the island's economy. This spring, the Puerto Rican government proposed an austerity-style budget that would allow it to strip rights from the unionized workers in the public sector. They have also proposed privatizing the island's electrical utility.

    I liked the response from the union lawyer-
    “The things that you are hearing from the government is ‘look how many rights they have, look how well they are doing,’” she says, referring to the government’s implication that the public sector is the place to trim the fat. “This means unions are in fact doing their jobs and doing it well.”

    I agree! Everyone should have those sorts of protections; the way to fix things isn't to drag union members down, it's to pull everyone else up.

    ISIS delenda est
    Apothe0sisshrykeArdollonelyahavaShadowenHacksawSquigieSkeithGnome-InterruptusMrMisterJihadJesusMan in the MistsJobless AnarchistEdith UpwardszagdrobFoufouMagellLord_AsmodeuskaortiKristmas Kthulhu
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Unions make me sad because, as an idealistic concept they're amazing. An industry of employees banding together to go, "Hey, screw you if you try to mistreat us." It side-steps the need of government intervention to protect people, as long as it continues to fight.

    But then you hear about those instances where unions don't protect people, or use their membership fees toward political parties, and it's like... my dreams... they are dead.

    Unions being political is a necessity for them to achieve their stated functions. The aristocracy spends hundreds of millions on buying politicians in order to legislate against the interest of the workers. Why should the unions be barred doing the same thing?

    Well in that respect it's like unions are being forced to do something in order to do what they're meant to.

    the act of workers banding together to advance their interests is inherently political. The idea that it isn't or shouldn't be is exactly the message spread by elites bent on union busting.

    I agree but what I mean is money being donated to the political parties / funding politicians. This is starting to slant into another topic though.

    Edit - As opposed to "employees vs. employers."

    well no, I think directly funding politicians or parties is essential to any union in America since money the only way to gain influence in our political system.

    There can be no separation between the economic arena of "employees vs employers" and the political arena

    Well I'm not against hearing why, so can you explain this more? For the moment I disagree. I do think it's possible for unions to take action against wrongdoing or unfair treatment by the employer, the easiest example being strikes, without involving any level of government.

    To take the example of strikes, the government has been extensively involved in breaking strikes often very violently

    many unionized groups are also government employees and so political action is the obvious way to improve their situation.

    the best example in recent times is probably what Scott Walker and the Republicans have done in Wisconsin. Laws were passed denying the right of many workers to even unionize in the first place.

    RiemannLives on
    Panda4YouGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsMagell
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2014
    I was strongly pro-union right up until the local SEIU took hundreds of dollars from my wife's paycheck...which was not large...for dues. Including "initial" dues on hire.

    Sure, she was free not to join. But they got theirs regardless.

    They explained it was needed for them to keep advocating for her pay and benefits. She was making minimum wage, and no benefits.

    Almost feels like there need to be some caps on dues as a function of pay, and such. It really felt like a scam to fleece temporary workers and short term employees. It didn't make me hate unions entirely or anything, but it definitely eliminated the rosey tint from my glasses.

    Edit: oh, and when she wanted to talk to her rep about it, that rep was on a multi week paid vacation. Vacation my wife did not earn.

    mcdermott on
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I was strongly pro-union right up until the local SEIU took hundreds of dollars from my wife's paycheck...which was not large...for dues. Including "initial" dues on hire.

    Sure, she was free not to join. But they for theirs regardless.

    They explained it was needed for them to keep advocating for her pay and benefits. She was making minimum wage, and no benefits.

    Almost feels like there need to be some caps on dues as a function of pay, and such. It really felt like a scam to fleece temporary workers and short term employees. It didn't make me hate unions entirely or anything, but it definitely eliminated the rosey tint from my glasses.
    same thing happened to me working a crappy retail job at the Bon way back when. Though I just quit and got another min wage retail job rather than pay them.

    really pissed me off at the time but I think it is really the result of a union that has been pretty much Busted. Between government regulating at the behest of the rich and strikebreaking, Unions like that are really more of a Guild. They exist to protect the interests of the more senior employees against the interests of the newer employees. Which is fine by the company because they like nothing better than division among their workforce.

    Incenjucar
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Guys I feel like I got shaken down.

    Nobody likes me but that's okay. I'm used to it.
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2014
    Henroid wrote: »
    Guys I feel like I got shaken down.

    Do you live in a right-to-work state? If not, it doesn't really matter anyway.

    Aioua on
    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    really the heart and soul of anti union propaganda is to divide the workforce by getting them thinking about why another worker is slightly better off as opposed to why the rich are enormously better off.

    it is really hard to get across to someone making minimum wage what it would really mean for someone to earn several million dollars a year. But if the person working the other shift gets $0.25 an hour more and has a better health plan then FUCK THEM the lazy entitled bastard!

    and to the slightly better off employees who have some benefits of seniority the message to them is always "fuck you, got mine". Keep reminding them of the hordes of young people / immigrants / robots coming to take their jerbs.

    ArdolIncenjucarShadowenSquigieGnome-InterruptusEdith UpwardsMagelljakobagger
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    When my grandfather taught high school in Texas, the only reason he wasn't fired thanks to public pressure was that he had tenure. Without that tenure, he would have lost his job for daring to teach evolution.

    So, you know, tenure isn't really a bad thing a lot of the time.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    LoveIsUnityRiemannLivesCptKemzikAngelHedgieshrykeArdollonelyahavaShadowenHacksawenc0reSkeithiTunesIsEvilGnome-InterruptusJihadJesusMan in the MistsjoshofalltradesJobless AnarchistEdith UpwardszagdrobFiendishrabbitMagellLord_AsmodeusNeoTomajakobaggerhawkboxKristmas Kthulhu
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I was strongly pro-union right up until the local SEIU took hundreds of dollars from my wife's paycheck...which was not large...for dues. Including "initial" dues on hire.

    Sure, she was free not to join. But they for theirs regardless.

    They explained it was needed for them to keep advocating for her pay and benefits. She was making minimum wage, and no benefits.

    Almost feels like there need to be some caps on dues as a function of pay, and such. It really felt like a scam to fleece temporary workers and short term employees. It didn't make me hate unions entirely or anything, but it definitely eliminated the rosey tint from my glasses.
    same thing happened to me working a crappy retail job at the Bon way back when. Though I just quit and got another min wage retail job rather than pay them.

    really pissed me off at the time but I think it is really the result of a union that has been pretty much Busted. Between government regulating at the behest of the rich and strikebreaking, Unions like that are really more of a Guild. They exist to protect the interests of the more senior employees against the interests of the newer employees. Which is fine by the company because they like nothing better than division among their workforce.

    This right here.
    Unions in the US are busted, by and large. They have to constantly fight for basic shit like time off because none of those protections ever made it into law. All we have is a laughably low minimum wage and OT for some, but not all, types of workers.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
    RiemannLivesApothe0sisPanda4YouArdolIncenjucarShadoweniTunesIsEvilMrMisterEdith UpwardszagdrobLord_AsmodeusKristmas Kthulhu
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Guys I feel like I got shaken down.

    Here is the whole thing if you haven't read it. (But you should join a union tho. Totally worth it.)

    No employee in the United States can legally be required to be a full-dues-paying, formal union member. But in many states, an employee can be forced to pay certain union dues or be fired from his or her job.
    Union members have the right to resign from formal membership at any time. However, dues deduction authorizations may limit when they can be revoked.
    Employees covered by state Right to Work laws can not lawfully be required to pay any union fees to keep their jobs. But state Right to Work laws do not protect railway and airline employees and employees of private-sector contractors on some federal properties.
    Because they enjoy the special privilege of exclusive representation, unions have a legal duty to represent fairly all employees in their bargaining units. (And in right to work states this means people who don't pay anything in also :Rock)

    Unions are legally required to represent nonmember employees the same as members, but unfortunately this duty is often breached.
    If a law or bargaining agreement permits it, employees can be forced to pay certain union fees. If you don’t join the union, or resign from membership, and notify the union that you don’t want to pay full dues, the required fee must be limited to the union's proven costs of collective bargaining activities. This fee may not lawfully include things like political expenses.
    Nonmembers with religious objections to supporting a union have the right to ask the union to redirect the forced dues amount to charity. Religious objectors do not have to belong to a specific church to claim this right.
    A union member who wants to work during a strike should resign from union membership BEFORE going to work. If the resignation is mailed, the employee should not work until the day after the resignation is postmarked. Otherwise, the employee could be fined by the union. If you are already a nonmember, you can work at will during a strike and not be lawfully fined.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    Aioua21stCenturyNarbusThe EnderBloodySlothAl_watArdolIncenjucarlonelyahavaShadowenHacksawQuidDivideByZeroenc0reSkeithiTunesIsEviljoshofalltradesEdith UpwardszagdrobMagellLord_AsmodeusKristmas Kthulhu
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The crappy "have to pay whether you want to or not" status of unions is kind of like the crappy "have to buy insurance whether you want it or not" status of the ACA. Yeah, it kind of sucks that you're compelled to buy something even if you don't want it, but the system fundamentally breaks down if buy-in isn't mandatory. And as much as mandated payment might suck, it sucks a lot less than the alternative, which is scrapping the system and letting everyone fend for themselves.

    Yes.

    Honestly I don't even think unions are a very good solution. There should be statutory protections for workers. Unions are just about the only way to achieve that though. Can you imagine congress writing, say, a bill to add mandatory paid leave without any outside influence. Just the goodness of their hearts?

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • A duck!A duck! Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2014
    You have to pay in because you benefit from their representation, whether you're a member or not, or at least that was how it was explained to me when I had to pay in when I got my state job. I've seen both sides, the good workers being protected from bad bosses, and the bad workers hanging around. It's not that the bad workers cannot be fired, it's that our managers are too lazy to actually gather the documentation necessary and go forward with the issue. I've gotten people reprimanded and moved out, and got someone to the very end of the process whereupon they were moved to a slack manager. It can be done, and it's not honestly that hard as long as you document and follow the rules, I've found.

    A duck! on
    21stCenturyShadowfireNarbusAngelHedgieAl_watshrykeArdolHacksawRedTideenc0reOneAngryPossumPLAiTunesIsEvilGnome-InterruptusjoshofalltradesEdith UpwardszagdrobMagellLord_Asmodeushawkbox
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    A superior court judge ruled something unconstitutional

    ha ha ha ha ha

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
    Hacksaw
Sign In or Register to comment.