Employee Free Choice Act???

[BlueStreak]

I live in a "Right to Work" State, which at one time long ago in my union activist days, I believed to translate into "Right to be Exploited" State.

But, the times have changed, and I have changed, well "somewhat" anyhow.
Now I believe that unions should not have the power to make membership compulsory, that even within an exisiting bargaining unit they should have to strive to maintain membership. In this regard, I think that the "Right to Work" status can be a good thing, propecting workers from being forced to join an organization against their will.

However,
In the matter of "union organizing", I have seen FIRST HAND that unions are not the only side capable of using coersion, intimidation, and harrassment. Nothing you will tell me will convince me otherwise. I've lived it. So, although I believe it is wrong for organizers to coerce, intimidate or harrass anyone into joining, I also believe it is wrong for the company to coerce, intimidate, or harrass anyone for for the purpose of dissuading them from joining.
The period between the "card check" phase and the election is used, and often dragged out, for just that purpose. To give the company time to "weed out troublemakers".

Having said that, I think that the flaw in the current bill is that it seeks to eliminate the "secret election" portion of the process. When it is the during card check that unscrupulous organizers resort to unethical methods. The unions ability to pass out literature, hold meetings (offsite) and make their pitch should not be hindered. But, it is the cardcheck that should be eliminated, if we are to streamline the process, and the "secret ballot" should be preserved.

Basically, what I'm saying is; Unions shouldn't be able to force anyone to join, and Companies shouldn't be able to force anyone to abstain.

Opinions?

Dave

[merrylander]

Back in the days when I was sub-rep that was the way it worked. Coercion by either side must be outlawed, how to do that is the $64 question.

[JJIII]

I'm with you on this one BlueStreak. A secret ballot is the cornerstone of a fair process.

[d-ray657]

Under the current law and the proposed law, no one is required to join the union. They will be required, however, to share in the reasonable cost of representation. In a right to work for less state, a worker can refuse to pay any dues to the union, yet receive the wages and benefits negotiated by the efforts of the union. A free rider who has been fired can even force the union to take his or her case to arbitration, a process which can easily cost the union in excess of five grand, when there would have been no right to challenge the termination without the union contract. If a union has a duty to represent both members and non-members, the non-members should be required to pay for the cost of representation.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Another issue I haven't followed, and don't understand. For all I know an open ballot may be a good thing.

But I doubt it.

Chas

[Charles]

Back in the days when I was sub-rep that was the way it worked. Coercion by either side must be outlawed, how to do that is the $64 question.

We could pass a law?

Oh well, at least we've evolved beyond the Pinkertons and the tire tool.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Back in the days when I was sub-rep that was the way it worked. Coercion by either side must be outlawed, how to do that is the $64 question.

It is covered in the National Labor Relations Act. The Act prohibits coercion by both management and unions.

Regards,

D-Ray

[hillbilly]

Can't speak for larger unions but I'll give my two cents on the one I had to deal with once. Back in the early 90's, I took a job at Toshiba for about three years in Lebanon TN. I had been there about three months and my probation period had just ended and was considered hired permanent. Being my 90 days had just ended, I had not joined the union yet though the workers kept advising me to do so quikly. Well, they didn't get a dollar raise they wanted and went on strike. Me not being in the union, I had no choice but to report for work, while about 600 people ( about half the workforce ) stood outside the gate stoning cars that entered the gate to go to work. I had two choices, one, either go to work and get my car stoned as I passed through them, or two, not go to work and get fired. I knew nobody else was hiring at the time, and I had a little baby boy at home to feed and couldn't live without a check coming in.

The way I seen it, they were on strike without good reason, all that hassle for nothing realy. At the time, Toshiba paid 10.05 an hour, and anywhere else in the area was only offering 5.25-8.00 an hour for much harder work. Myself at the time was damn happy to start out at 8 bucks and knew in just over a year I'd be getting paid 10.05 in an air conditioned factory. Most other plants in the area paid 5.25, only a couple other places offered as high as 8.00, and all those plants had no a/c and were sweat boxes. I never did join the union, nor did I make many friends there. I done my job and brought a check home to feed and shelter my son till I found a job building automatic transmissions for a shop a few years later. Toshiba wasn't bad, but the folks working there made it seem like a madhouse.Last I heard,the folks at Toshiba here was making over 14.00 just before Toshiba shut the Lebanon plant down for good, and all those madhouse folks are lookin' for ''anything they can find''.

[d-ray657]

Hillbilly, I'm sorry you got stuck in the middle of a tough situation there. I will, however, disagree with you about their strike being pointless.

I would expect that the other wages you were citing were non-union plants. The goal of the unions is not to accept the standard for wages that exists but to raise the standard. It's kind of the opposite of trickle-down economics. Rather than hoping that some of the wealth of the fat cats will trickle down to the workers, the unions try to engage in pull-up economics. The plants paying union wages will attract the best workers, and the other plants will have to raise their wages to compete. A strong union movement creates a strong foundation for all workers.

[hillbilly]

I remember right after the election. My wife is a boss at Cracker Barrel warehouse, the one big one here that supplies every giftshop in the country. After hearing the words '' spread the wealth '', the head honcho's called a meeting. They told the employee's that if it came down to them having to dish out more money, they'd close shop .. and forget about the giftshops and warehouse. I figure sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone .. as some money is better than no money coming in. Not everyone '' must get above their raisin' ''. Plants must make money or they are not going to fool with all the headaches of running a biz, go after 'em all to spread the wealth, and they decide to follow up with closing shop rather than spreadin' the wealth, .. then where's folk gonna go to find work? I wonder if China could can afford to give our government enough money to support the USA on welfare. Just sayin' ..

[d-ray657]

I remember right after the election. My wife is a boss at Cracker Barrel warehouse, the one big one here that supplies every giftshop in the country. After hearing the words '' spread the wealth '', the head honcho's called a meeting. They told the employee's that if it came down to them having to dish out more money, they'd close shop .. and forget about the giftshops and warehouse. I figure sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone .. as some money is better than no money coming in. Not everyone '' must get above their raisin' ''. Plants must make money or they are not going to fool with all the headaches of running a biz, go after 'em all to spread the wealth, and they decide to follow up with closing shop rather than spreadin' the wealth, .. then where's folk gonna go to find work? Just sayin' ..

Call me an idealist, but I would like to see us build a society where we operate on principles better than "them thats got the gold makes the rules." That is very clearly the rule that Cracker Barrel management is seeking to impose on its workers. Next time one of the business agents I work with wants to meet me at Cracker Barrel for breakfast, I'll have to share this story with him. I sincerely hope that you and your wife find the job security you look for, but I hope that management gets its comeuppance too.

Regards,

D-Ray

[hillbilly]

Call me an idealist, but I would like to see us build a society where we operate on principles better than "them thats got the gold makes the rules." That is very clearly the rule that Cracker Barrel management is seeking to impose on its workers. Next time one of the business agents I work with wants to meet me at Cracker Barrel for breakfast, I'll have to share this story with him. I sincerely hope that you and your wife find the job security you look for, but I hope that management gets its comeuppance too.

Regards,

D-Ray


When I think about how much my wife pays for insurance, and Cracker Barrel also taking a huge hit on paying part of that for each employee, all of their overhead and taxes to boot, the thought of spreading the wealth could hurt them.

They were talking about having to sell the warehouse in order to stay afloat. Otherwise, if they were to have to spread the wealth, they'd get taxed to death and it wouldn't work. In this economy, how could one think that it would? My wife is not in home office a mile from the warehouse so even if they do keep home office open for the restaurants and just forget about the giftshops, she'll be gone just the same as her job is in the warehouse that only supplies the giftshops.

[BlueStreak]

Fellas,

I was born and raised in Ohios Mahoning Valley, the Youngstown/Warren area in Northeast Ohio. I know most of you may not be familiar with the place, but it was once HUGE in the steel and automotive industries.

Point is;
I have seen the damage that organized labor, allowed to become far too powerfull and run amok, can do. Everytime I'm in town and I drive through the area I see what "outsiders" may not----big, empty fields where steel mills and the neighborhoods that surrounded them used to be. Youngstown is a city that had about 160,000 citizens in 1970 and has about 80,000 today, it's a ghost town.

Now, there is more than one factor that led to this unfortunate situation, but to deny that combative labor had anything to do with it is rediculous. When the trade restrictions came down, the mills with their high overhead and protected workforce, were ill prepared to compete with foreign steel. And between the USW with it's policy of "No backward steps" refusing to budge, and the mill owners unwilling to invest in modernization, well--- Hence, empty fields where mills used to be.

There are a lot of towns like this; Gary Indiana, Detroit................

However,
Whilst I fully understand that labor run amok is a bad thing, I believe that the TOTAL absence of unions would be a mistake as well. I believe that in the absence of any countervailing force, it will be the tendency of capitalists to continue cutting costs and "seeking greater efficiencies" until the basic benefits we all enjoy as American workers, yes even us non-union folks, are gone. Slowly eroded away, whittled down until all we get is a paycheck that the BOSS is happy with---not you, (or your kids when they join the workforce).
Regardless of how hard you work.

I am far, far less radical than I was twenty five years ago. I learned my lesson about that a long time ago. But, contrary to what some of you may think, I am no fool. And as I see it, this is not a question of one extreme or the other, it is a question of balance.

There, now you have a better understanding of my position on Unions.

Have a great day!

Dave

[noonereal]

Point is;
I have seen the damage that organized labor, allowed to become far too powerfull and run amok, can do. Everytime I'm in town and I drive through the area I see what "outsiders" may not----big, empty fields where steel mills and the neighborhoods that surrounded them used to be. Youngstown is a city that had about 160,000 citizens in 1970 and has about 80,000 today, it's a ghost town.



Management makes the decisions and just how did labor and management become combative?????

I agree with the theme of your post but let's be clear on responsibilities.

The mills in other parts of the country shut own decades before the auto/steel plants and most had no unions or weak unions. Careful about complex issues and blame.

[merrylander]

It is covered in the National Labor Relations Act. The Act prohibits coercion by both management and unions.

Regards,

D-Ray


funny thing is that was not the way Secretary of Labor Chao interpreted it. Maybe that was why all the workers there smiled as they said Ciao Chao.:rolleyes:

[merrylander]

As I posted earlier we lost our steel mills and auto industry with more of the blame due to mis-management than union demands. After WW II we had the mills, everyone else was re-building. Instead of ploughing the profits back into modernizing the mills they squandered them. When the competition got their new modern mills up and running they could undercut our prices.

Detroit simply stopped listening to their customers until about ten years ago (we drive his and hers 2000 Impala LSs) and a lot of them refuse to come back. I realize that union bashing is quite the thing in this country. Hey, I am retired so could care less about unions and management. If all those of you still working want to go back to a seven day 12 hour a day work week be my guests. Oh you do get time of to go to church on Sunday, but you better get a note from the pastor. At least you won't have to worry about colledge tuition as your children will be in the workforce by 12. My Dad was in the mills in England at that age. He emigrated to Canada and educated himself further to wind up in a white collar position.

[d-ray657]

funny thing is that was not the way Secretary of Labor Chao interpreted it. Maybe that was why all the workers there smiled as they said Ciao Chao.:rolleyes:

To be hypertechnical, the Department of Labor doesn't have responsibility for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. An independent board is established under the statute called, strangely enough, the National Labor Relations Board. It hears claims against both unions and employers.

The Department of Labor administers a statute called the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which controls the financial affiars of unions, and also punishes unions if they interfere with union democracy. The Act gives the DOL oversight over the financial affairs of unions that Congress would never dream of giving over corporations.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Sandy G]

I still think that the sad situation the car companies, steel mills, etc find themselves in today is pretty much equally shared by management, labor, & government...

[BlueStreak]

Management makes the decisions and just how did labor and management become combative?????

I agree with the theme of your post but let's be clear on responsibilities.

The mills in other parts of the country shut own decades before the auto/steel plants and most had no unions or weak unions. Careful about complex issues and blame.

I sense that you may have a greater knowledge of labor history than most. So you'll know what I'm talkin' about when I cite things like "Pinkertons', and the "Homestead Riot", the "Coalfield Wars", and the "Little Steel Ambush".
There were plenty of incidences where management hired thugs to intimidate
organized labor. Of course today most people are ignorant of these things, or have been steeped in decades of corporate sponsered revisionist history wherein only unions do such things.

I have a story about something I saw with my own eyes. During a coal strike in the early 1990's I went with some volunteers from the UFCW, out to Western Virginia with canned good, hot dogs, etc, to show support for the miners. We set up a grill, tent and some tables near the picket lines. A short while later some POLICE with riot gear came around and began taunting picketers. (It's interesting to note that the press showed up at the same time the police did.) Calling them names, getting in their faces, shaking nightsticks at them, etc. The union steward did his best to try and keep everyone calm. But it wasn't long until some hothead pushed a cop--and the fight was on. The next morning the headlines, even here in Hampton Roads read "UNION VIOLENCE ERUPTS IN COALSTRIKE". No mention of management or government involvement, of course.

(Hmmmmm, I'm thinking COPS, were sent by a local politician, at the behest of the coal companies to incite, not prevent, a riot? How could I come to a crazy conclusion like that?)

Anyhow, I wasn't trying to assign blame, d-ray. Quite the opposite. I was trying to show that both sides are to blame. Actually, all three sides, the government is no innocent bystander either.

Dave

[noonereal]

I still think that the sad situation the car companies, steel mills, etc find themselves in today is pretty much equally shared by management, labor, & government...

absolutely

profit at all cost (capitalism) always needs to be regulated or rape occurs

[spasmo55]

Under the current law and the proposed law, no one is required to join the union. They will be required, however, to share in the reasonable cost of representation. In a right to work for less state, a worker can refuse to pay any dues to the union, yet receive the wages and benefits negotiated by the efforts of the union. A free rider who has been fired can even force the union to take his or her case to arbitration, a process which can easily cost the union in excess of five grand, when there would have been no right to challenge the termination without the union contract. If a union has a duty to represent both members and non-members, the non-members should be required to pay for the cost of representation.

Regards,

D-Ray

Perhaps the duty to represent comes as the cost of also being the sole negotiating body, yes. Although it may not seem feasible to some, it is quite possible that some people may actually wish to negotiate their own terms of employment.

My wife works at a public library run by the city whose employees are represented by a union, though this is a "Right to Work" state. As we already have healthcare coverage, I would prefer that she have the option to tell her employer she would split the difference, making more wage and saving the city the cost of healthcare. This option is available to those working in the local school district as they have a different union contract.

I have had two personal experiances with unions, both negative, and the pleasure to have been a "Rudy Ranger" in Austin MN in FEBRUARY 1986 during a meat packers strike. DAMN was it cold standing that line.

I am constantly baffled that people who think that the gov't can be so good at regulating or running things (the left) still beleave that unions are a neccessary thing, rather than insisting that the gov't write and enforce fair labor laws? Could it be that the unions are their voter base, and that the members might drift without the union to tell them how to vote?

Just some thoughts

[noonereal]

I believe most folks are unaware of the benefit they receive as a result of labor unions.

[BlueStreak]

Well, if the unions were the sole "base" of the left, then there wouldn't be much support left, now would there? What is the number now? 5-6% of what's left of the workforce?

If the government isn't so good at enforcing their own labor regulations, then perhaps it may be necessary, in some instances, for employees to do it themselves?

No one has EVER been able to TELL me how to vote.

Although I did have a psycho threaten my life recently, because I told him
I favored a certain Democratic Candidate. Can I call that the right TELLING me to vote Republican?

Just some more thoughts.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Perhaps the duty to represent comes as the cost of also being the sole negotiating body, yes. Although it may not seem feasible to some, it is quite possible that some people may actually wish to negotiate their own terms of employment.

My wife works at a public library run by the city whose employees are represented by a union, though this is a "Right to Work" state. As we already have healthcare coverage, I would prefer that she have the option to tell her employer she would split the difference, making more wage and saving the city the cost of healthcare. This option is available to those working in the local school district as they have a different union contract.

I have had two personal experiances with unions, both negative, and the pleasure to have been a "Rudy Ranger" in Austin MN in FEBRUARY 1986 during a meat packers strike. DAMN was it cold standing that line.

I am constantly baffled that people who think that the gov't can be so good at regulating or running things (the left) still beleave that unions are a neccessary thing, rather than insisting that the gov't write and enforce fair labor laws? Could it be that the unions are their voter base, and that the members might drift without the union to tell them how to vote?

Just some thoughts

No doubt that the duty of fair representation arises from the role of exclusive bargaining representative. There is also no doubt that union workers earn more than their non-union counterparts in almost all fields. See http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb0589.pdf Moreover, except for those protected by state merit laws, union workers are among the only who have protection from arbitrary employment decisions by management. See http://www.inthesetimes.org/article/3610/as_unions_fall_lawsuits_rise/
Because the last several decades have focused more and more on the concept of "I've got mine" more and more workers have bought into that greed and see no reason to pay their fair share of the cost of representation if they don't have to. One by one the free riders are chipping away at the ability of unions to improve the lives of all workers.

The idea of protecting workers who work to obtain union representation is based on the unquestionable proposition that an individual worker does not have the bargaining power to compete with the power of those controlling capital. The playing field is levelled by allowing workers to join together for mutual aid and benefit. While you and your wife might wish she could negotiate a bump in wages in lieu of medical benefits, she would have no option but begging for that without the combined economic force of the unionized workers. She always has the option to become involved in the union representation and suggest that an option of wages in lieu of insurance be included in the next contract.

Union bargaining works within the context of the free market. The structure of the labor laws is supposed to permit management and labor to bargain on equal footing and let the economic forces determine where the terms will fall. The other labor and employment laws set minimum protections for all workers, but they are based on many public policy decisions other than giving workers the ablity to bargain on equal footing with employers. (policies against race discrimination, protecting soldiers employment rights, making disabled persons productive, protecting the investment that older workers have made in their careers, etc.)

So stating that you're baffled that workers who receive minimum protections of other employment laws would still want the opportunity to bargain collectively is comparing apples and oranges, the way it has been said that those of us on the left do. Collective bargaining is based on the good old capitalist principle of negotiating the best deal. The employment laws are based on public policies that are sometimes much broader than the employment relationship.

Finally, if the unions could tell their members how to vote, we wouln't have been saddled with Dub for eight years. The infusion of single issue politics over such wedge issues as gay marriage, abortion and gun control has convinced many union members to vote against their economic interests, and thus allowed Bush to reward his corporate buddies with an even stronger golden rule - them that's got the gold makes the rules.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Finally, if the unions could tell their members how to vote, we wouln't have been saddled with Dub for eight years. The infusion of single issue politics over such wedge issues as gay marriage, abortion and gun control has convinced many union members to vote against their economic interests, and thus allowed Bush to reward his corporate buddies with an even stronger golden rule - them that's got the gold makes the rules.

Regards,

D-Ray

Clearly you get it D-Ray.

[Sandy G]

One of my best friends had a summer job washing trucks at the now-defunct Mason-Dixon freight lines. They were represented by Jimmy Hoffa's union, the Teamsters, & as it was a temporary job, my friend was told that he would not have to join the union, & Tennessee is a right-to-work state anyhow. However, on the 2nd or 3rd day, he was told by a couple of the workers that if he liked the windshield in his car, & the nice new tires, he REALLY ought to join the teamsters. So, obviously, he did, & remains a teamster member to this day, altho he is a veterinarian by trade. But no, Unions NEVER use intimidation or scare tactics...No, they're simon-pure...Its only Management who does stuff like that...I also have this slightly-used Bridge in a large northeastern metropolitan area I'd like to sell you, too...(grin)

[merrylander]

I am constantly baffled that people who think that the gov't can be so good at regulating or running things (the left) still beleave that unions are a neccessary thing, rather than insisting that the gov't write and enforce fair labor laws? Could it be that the unions are their voter base, and that the members might drift without the union to tell them how to vote?

Just some thoughts

Perhaps if we voted in some people with enough intelligence to blow hot soup and enough honesty to tell K street to get lost things would be different. Where I came from the government ran several things from a major railroad to a health care system quite efficiently.

The labor laws are there but Congress has been told by their masters not to enforce them. Perhaps come 2010 and again in 2012 if those who love to criticize but also love to avoid the polls got of their arses and voted we could change some things

[d-ray657]

One of my best friends had a summer job washing trucks at the now-defunct Mason-Dixon freight lines. They were represented by Jimmy Hoffa's union, the Teamsters, & as it was a temporary job, my friend was told that he would not have to join the union, & Tennessee is a right-to-work state anyhow. However, on the 2nd or 3rd day, he was told by a couple of the workers that if he liked the windshield in his car, & the nice new tires, he REALLY ought to join the teamsters. So, obviously, he did, & remains a teamster member to this day, altho he is a veterinarian by trade. But no, Unions NEVER use intimidation or scare tactics...No, they're simon-pure...Its only Management who does stuff like that...I also have this slightly-used Bridge in a large northeastern metropolitan area I'd like to sell you, too...(grin)

I don't think I ever said that unions have never engaged in violence. They just didn't pay anyone to do it for them.:D

I did say that the law against coercion applies against both employers and unions.

I have to admit that it was always assumed in my family that my brothers and I would go to college. (My parents helped put me through because they saved the money from my dad's union wages as a postal worker.) While I worked in manufacturing plants and worked as a garbage collector, it was usually doing summer jobs. One of my proudest moments, though, was when I finally completed my probationary period at one of the plants and was able to be sworn into the union (IBEW). I worked the second shift, so by the time I attended the union meeting to be sworn in, I was late for work. I walked into the plant and the foreman told me I was late, and I just grinned and said, "yeah, I was getting sworn into the union."

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Most government employees are union, and according to this: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

there are 21 million government employees.

According to this:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

there are 81 million non farm workers.That would mean 26% + what's left of non government unions are unionized.

I was present at a conversation between a Teamster driver and an upper management gentleman. I can't remember the exact words but the driver said there used to be 2 at the table, management and the drivers, repped by the unions. He went on to say that now, there's 3 at the table, management, drivers, and unions, that the union bigwigs are only looking out for themselves at the drivers expense.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Most government employees are union, and according to this: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228

there are 21 million government employees.

According to this:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

there are 81 million non farm workers.That would mean 26% + what's left of non government unions are unionized.

I was present at a conversation between a Teamster driver and an upper management gentleman. I can't remember the exact words but the driver said there used to be 2 at the table, management and the drivers, repped by the unions. He went on to say that now, there's 3 at the table, management, drivers, and unions, that the union bigwigs are only looking out for themselves at the drivers expense.

Pete

I'm afraid you read the statistics wrong. The chart showed that there were 81 million people not in the labor market, presumably including children, students and retirees.

The chart showed that there were 154 million in the civilian labor force. Of course, only a fraction of the government workers are fed. The majority work for state and local government.

And for those of you decrying the loss of states rights, you'll see that there were only a little more than 10% more federal workers in 2006 than in 1946, but over 450% more state and local government workers. Of the 21 million government workers in the workforce, the feds made up only around 2.7million. This comes from the first source cited.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I'm afraid you read the statistics wrong. The chart showed that there were 81 million people not in the labor market, presumably including children, students and retirees.

The chart showed that there were 154 million in the civilian labor force. Of course, only a fraction of the government workers are fed. The majority work for state and local government.

And for those of you decrying the loss of states rights, you'll see that there were only a little more than 10% more federal workers in 2006 than in 1946, but over 450% more state and local government workers. Of the 21 million government workers in the workforce, the feds made up only around 2.7million. This comes from the first source cited.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ach, 'k, d'oh. But that's still 20% not including the rump non-gov unions.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Ach, 'k, d'oh. But that's still 20% not including the rump non-gov unions.

Pete

Getting closer, but, 36.8% of government employees are unionized, which is significantly higher than the private sector. Because the private sector is much larger than the public sector, there are still more union members in the private sector, but a much smaller percentage who have the benefit of union representation. The overall percentage is 12.2%

In 2008, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had
median usual weekly earnings of $886 while those who were not repre-
sented by unions had median weekly earnings of $691.

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

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

In all my years as a member of local 533 pipe fitters union, I have never seen or heard of a brother using any kind of intimidation. I'm not saying the teamsters or other unions don't do it, I'm just saying you can't paint all unions with one brush. The way I see it, is if a man wants to work for less, that's between him and his family. My Union keeps our work primarily by being the very best at what we do. Companies that don't want to, or have time to screw around, know that when they use Union fitters, they don't have to worry about the pipe.

Gosh, Dog, we agree on something else. My main client is a building trades union as well, and after the workers get five years of apprentice training, contractors paying the workers half as much still can't compete with them.

I republican friend of mine worked on stadium design. He worked on a project in Florida where non-union electricians came in and fouled everything up. They brought in a union contractor who fixed the problems and allowed the project to be finished on time. He came away with a new perspective of union workers.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Sandy G]

I don't think I ever said that unions have never engaged in violence. They just didn't pay anyone to do it for them.:D

I did say that the law against coercion applies against both employers and unions.

I have to admit that it was always assumed in my family that my brothers and I would go to college. (My parents helped put me through because they saved the money from my dad's union wages as a postal worker.) While I worked in manufacturing plants and worked as a garbage collector, it was usually doing summer jobs. One of my proudest moments, though, was when I finally completed my probationary period at one of the plants and was able to be sworn into the union (IBEW). I worked the second shift, so by the time I attended the union meeting to be sworn in, I was late for work. I walked into the plant and the foreman told me I was late, and I just grinned and said, "yeah, I was getting sworn into the union."

Regards,

D-Ray

Oh, the IBEW is REALLY a class act...We had in our plant members of Local 934...And they were virtually ALL "Craftsmen", in the finest sense of the word. You really didn't have to tell 'em what to do, you turned 'em loose on a job, & that was that. When they got done, you could about count on flipping the switch, & have whatever it was "Run like a Top" from the get-go. One guy's thing was making radius bends in 2" conduit pipe-There's an art to that, & he was a Michelangelo...The Pressmen's Union back in the old days when Mr Berry ran it prided itself on the incredible low number of strikes & stoppages they had...They had a apprenticeship program that was second to none, w/what amounted to a junior college at their headquarters. When you became a journeyman pressman w/the IPPAU, you KNEW printing inside & out, & were a valuable commodity. After Mr Berry died in '54, though, the Pressmen started going downhill, & now they're primarily a dues-collecting organisation.

[BlueStreak]

:DI really am enjoying this thread.:D

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Only 36% of government workers are unionized? Where did you get that from?

Does that include schools?

Regarding unions and trades, of the many many plant tours I've had union work was generally easy to spot - it's didn't look hacked.

Pete

[d-ray657]

Only 36% of government workers are unionized? Where did you get that from?

Does that include schools?

Regarding unions and trades, of the many many plant tours I've had union work was generally easy to spot - it's didn't look hacked.

Pete

Check the link I cited in the post. It's from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Teachers are among the most unionized. Local governments have the highest percentage at 42%, but I think that includes the teachers, and firefighters, who are also pretty good at organizing.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

D'oh! I wonder where all those nonunion gov't workers are?

But I'll say it again - if you can't do your job because of union rules we'll lose those jobs to foreigners.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Btw, for the record, I drive American cars and don't shop at Walmart.

Pete