Labor Bill Faces Threat in Senate - Page 2

Zachstar · 03-13-09, 07:15 PM

Its just union hate from the usual sources.

Seriously its like some make this to mean the end of the world. The only company who even has a point thinking like that is Wal Mart.

Wal Mart has defeated UFCW time and again because of the difficult process to unionize. When it finally does happen they make a lame excuse and leave the city. So people hate the union afterwards.

As for freedom being taken away. That is BS. 50 percent or more have to agree before the shop is unionized. Don't like it? Leave and don't make a scene doing it because nobody likes a party pooper.

Good jobs will never be unionized. People dont want to just pay the union dues if they already have a great job.

However, Jobs like that are falling quickly. With rising population there has been a rising amount of incidents of employee abuse. This law will end that to an extent by the FEAR of unions. The fear of unionizing will get management to treat employees better companies to adopt better conditions that while a short term loss will be a long term gain when they dont have to negotiate union contracts.

What I am seeing here is two sides on the "No free choice act!" side.

#1 It will give the commies more power! This continued wrong statement from those who cant get over the cold war is just flat out crap and not worth even discussing. If you think unions are communism you need to get an education.

#2 It will ruin the economy! During the growth of unions the middle class saw a huge REAL increase (Unlike the bubble based growth after the Union killing years of Regan and Bush Sr.) in numbers. The nation had more spending money and people actually had time to spend it. The only economy Unions harm is China's as places like Wal Mart which take cheap buy prices as an excuse for huge markups and bad employee policy (Tho I personally will admit the employees there are treated better then some Union Shops that slip under the radar)

There is no #3 as there is no arguement to be made when you base it on the lie that Unions get uber spying powers or some other BS.

If one wants to be anti-union so be it but dont base it on BS.

August · 03-13-09, 08:31 PM

Well every bit of experience i've had with unions tells me that the "cure" will be worse than the disease. Unions pretty much kill companies, especially small ones.

Digital_Trucker · 03-13-09, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Well every bit of experience i've had with unions tells me that the "cure" will be worse than the disease. Unions pretty much kill companies, especially small ones.

I've had plenty of experience with unions myself, most of it rather disgusting. They served a purpose, once upon a time, and may well serve one again. Like everything else, though, they can't seem to settle in the middle of the road (so to speak, and not the road that the dead skunk is in either), they just keep playing pendulum and swinging towards the extreme until it's time to come back the other way.

CaptainHaplo · 03-14-09, 09:38 AM

August- I am not sure your understand what the unions here is trying to do....

Say they get 15% of the people in a company to back forming a union. Ok - they get those 15% to start telling the coworkers - on the side - you better sign on - cuz if you don't - when it goes thru - your going to be seen as an "outsider". The union won't want to stand up hard for you because you didnt stand up for it.....

Now you get pressure to sign on - even when you may not want it. The problem here is that instead of having a "secret ballot vote" like has always been done - your view on the matter is now PUBLIC to the union. Under the current rules - if you get enough signatures on the card - you force a vote. The vote is secret - so just like our elections its YOUR choice - no one can villify or punish you for voting your own thoughts. However - this wants to take that away - and make it possible for one side or the other to find out how you voted, and depending on the outcome, perhaps use that against you.

I have no problem with letting unions have a voice if the workers want to form one. But doing it this way means that the unions have an ability to strong arm the workers to create one. Whats wrong with the voters having a private ballot? If they get 51% in that ballot, the union wins. Not one supporter of this bill has shown WHY allowing the workers the privacy of a secret ballot hurts them. The only attempt I have heard in any discussions I have had on this was that its SO hard to get 30% signed on to force the vote. Well if you can't get 30% to sign on to force the vote -why do you think your going to get 51%? But if you can force a "public" vote - then you can use fear to pressure those who would choose otherwise.

That is dishonest. This is merely an attempt to change the process to favor unions as organizations over the rights of the workers.

August · 03-14-09, 10:58 AM

I understand your concerns Haplo and share them to some extent, but the fact is it's a two way street. The jobs of union supporters in a company that votes non union are just as threatened.

Sailor Steve · 03-14-09, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Hmm actually its the opposite of democracy, not freedom per say.

It's 'per se'. Latin. Means 'in and of itself', or 'intrinsically'.

Zachstar · 03-14-09, 02:08 PM

The quick card check is there to PREVENT abuse.

Under the current system employers have plenty of time to replace those who might vote in the union and worse use underhand strong arm tactics to "encourage" people to vote against their best interests.

Yes there will always be instances where people who vote no are outsiders but that will be rare because these days there is VERY little middle ground between a good job and a bad job. If people are coming to work every day keeping an eye on the clock and mentally begging it to move faster they will likely overwhelmingly vote in a union. Because the employer did not make a good enough attempt to prevent such an action by bettering employee relations.

Neptunus Rex · 03-14-09, 03:56 PM

I don't think any of you have an understanding of unionized labor history here. Secret ballots were mandated when employees and their families who did not support unionizing were being harassed, threatened, even murdered by the unionizers. And don't give me coincidence BS.

If this bill passes, it will drag labor right back to the early 20th century. I was in a union when I firsted started working full time and I hate unions as a result. Only a moron gives up his right to negotiate for himself.

Unions breed mediocrity and that's something that the USA does not need, now or in the future.

CaptainHaplo · 03-14-09, 06:40 PM

Zachstar

3 flaws in your argument.

#1 Regarding a secret ballot - an employer doesn't KNOW how any person voted, so there is no chance for them to single out individuals and punish them. However - the "card check" would enable both the unions and the company to see who voted what. If the union vote is no - the people who voted yes could also be "punished" by the company for their vote. A secret ballot also protects them.

#2 It is the right of a business to hire or fire an individual. You do not have "right" to work wherever you want. If a worker is "agitating" for a union to the detriment of his or her job, or simply not performing to expectations then the company should be able to release them. Not to mention - last time I checked, a company didnt call me and tell me I had to go to work for them. They make you an offer - and if you think its fair then you accept - if you don't like it for whatever reason, you turn it down. Its called getting what your worth. This "collective bargaining" crap is nothing more than "we all agreed to things individually to come here and do our job under specific, individual terms. A binding employment "contract" or agreement if you will. However, now that we can all walk out and put the company over a barrel, we think we will use this leverage to "renegotiate" and thus break OUR side of the agreement with you - the company. If you have a problem with us breaking our word - talk to our union rep. Have a nice day."

#3 There is documented history of unions using strongarm tactics - both on non-members and members alike. There are protections under the law currently that prevent companies from abusing individual employees. Making it public who voted how protects no one. If the union wins - those who voted no are on the "outside" - as history has proven. If the union loses - those who voted yes are likely to be pushed out the door by management. How does this protect anyone? If no one knows how you, individually, voted - then your safe from repercussions regardless of how it goes.

My uncle was a Union president - and after he left the post he got injured. The union screwed him worse than the company ever did. Why? Because it was easier to line their pockets than to fight for a worker. The IDEA of unions has some minor merit, but in practice they are more concerned over their own power than they are acting on behalf of their members. This is why Union membership is down so low, and why Unions are PUSHING so hard to force their way into areas - with legislation like this as proof of it. If Unions truly worked - then more normal workers WOULD form or join them. As it is, people don't want them, because they get little real value out of it, and often times are forced into situations, or actions, they don't personally approve of. For example, striking when they would rather not - or the really big one that has gotten so many to LEAVE the union - the unions supporting politicians - using union dues - IE members money - without the consent of the members.

This idea that a public ballot protects the worker is just not logical in any way. You worry about people being fired - ok fine - shorten the "vote" time to be one weak after the 30% criteria is met. If a company wants to oppose it - then they better get their $hit together and present it to the workers. Same for the Union folks pushing for it. If 25% of the business is laid off that week - then the Employment Securities Commission (or your state's equivilant) will be ALL over that company for violations of employment law. But make it public is to invite abuses - from both sides.

Zachstar · 03-14-09, 07:35 PM

While I strongly disagree I atleast want to thank you partially for atleast using the arguement of effects of unionizing on employees and not the expected and outrageous arguement of what it does for buisness bottom line or price effects on customers (The dumbest arguement ever against raising the minimum wage)

While I agree with (If you do not perform you ought to be fired) this is getting more and more not the case with firings these days. Sadly even in unionized shops. Where a cook is fired for having to stay home sick while a Cashier is kept on despite theft of company resources because she has a hot ass or the guy is a paintball buddy.

With a union in place there is atleast a chance that the Cashier's actions will be noted to higher ups that will step in with an investigation. This happens less and less in nonunion shops where one just has to leave and hear about next month how the cashier was finally fired and jailed after permanantly damaging the buisness.

BTW anyone being UAW up as an example is ruining their arguement. The auto crisis happened because the companies failed to modernize and be able to pay the legacy costs. There was some sillyness in the contract but none of it was killer compared to making SUVs when the market wanted migh MPG cheap hybrids.

Unions are NOT perfect but their slowing has cost the economy so much. And removed so much productivity and motivation. This going into law will SLOWLY start the process back towards growth. However, I do not plan to think all will be solved when it is signed into law. We MUST also give companies the resources they need to utilize the growth of motivation. Solar Power

CaptainHaplo · 03-14-09, 09:58 PM

Zach - I think we agree on some areas. Your welcome for trying to deal with your reasons. I think the give and take of a true discussion requires me to look at your points and you to look at mine, so I thank you for bringing up specifics as well.

I can see the problem with delaying a vote or having it scheduled 3-6 months out once the required number of sign ons happen. Sure, the company ditching people because they would vote in a union is wrong. But that could be solved by expediting the process. That is something I could support.

Why is it necessary to allow the union pushers and the company to SEE how you, me or joe the janitor voted? Shouldn't they just get the results and have to live with them? A "public" vote has way too many negatives - and I honestly don't see any positives. What I don't really understand, and perhaps you can make clear - is why a "secret" ballot - is a bad thing?

You also mentioned Wal-mart. Now I don't think you were trying to single them out, though you may have been. Doesn't really matter, the point is you talked about how when a store or locale would unionize, they would just close the store with some type of excuse. If this goes thru and thus creates more unionized workplaces, aren't more companies going to do the same thing, thus exacerbating economic hardships in the affected areas?

Now I admit I have an anti-union bias. This is because I see it as people who individually agreed to work under specific terms - wages, benefits, etc. Each person made that agreement with the company. Then a union forms, and those workers now can look at the company and basically say "screw you, we can all walk out and pretty much shut you down, so give us more." If they had not agreed to their own individual terms with the company that would be one thing, but they did. In essence, they are - each and every one - abrogating their agreement without cause just because they can, to get more out of their employer. I hate to put it so bluntly, but isn't that basically dishonest and unethical?

I look forward to your responses on these points.

Zachstar · 03-14-09, 10:47 PM

This tactic ends that "You unionize and we leave" crap. Wal Mart is going to unionize. They had the money to increase pay and assist the employees to keep them happy and then it would be the employees telling the unions to piss off.

If a company wants to leave because it has been unionized so be it. If its a bad company that refuses to deal with the issues it will be unionized again. Despite how red some place might seem. If people are staring at the clock begging for it to move faster just to get away. The place will be unionized.

There are situations where unions are used to squeeze every last ounce out of the company. but that is only in rare cases. And its not dishonest to feel that the work you do deserves more.

For instance if minimum wage had kept up with inflation we would be at nearly 15 USD an hour. Am I unethical for thinking that I deserve atleast 10 USD for working my butt off at a grocery? (I get min wage AND I am unionized makes sence eh?)

There is no way outside of maybe UAW that a Union can truely squeeze every last ounce from a company. I know that because it was MY line back when I was Anti-Union. That is because a happy workforce works better with less accidents and less incident meaning better results. The auto workforce at ford and GM is some of the best in the world. But that means jack crap if they are happily making SUVs instead of Cheap hybrids that the market demands.

The giant Anti-Union efforts of the banks, Wal Mart, Home Depot, and other comapnies are simply because of a fantasy that Unions are deadly commie snakes that want to destroy them because of their size. Instead of giving people a fair shake.

If wages get better people will spend more. That will benefit the economy.

Digital_Trucker · 03-15-09, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

While I strongly disagree I atleast want to thank you partially for atleast using the arguement of effects of unionizing on employees and not the expected and outrageous arguement of what it does for buisness bottom line or price effects on customers (The dumbest arguement ever against raising the minimum wage)

While I agree with (If you do not perform you ought to be fired) this is getting more and more not the case with firings these days. Sadly even in unionized shops. Where a cook is fired for having to stay home sick while a Cashier is kept on despite theft of company resources because she has a hot ass or the guy is a paintball buddy.

With a union in place there is atleast a chance that the Cashier's actions will be noted to higher ups that will step in with an investigation. This happens less and less in nonunion shops where one just has to leave and hear about next month how the cashier was finally fired and jailed after permanantly damaging the buisness.

BTW anyone being UAW up as an example is ruining their arguement. The auto crisis happened because the companies failed to modernize and be able to pay the legacy costs. There was some sillyness in the contract but none of it was killer compared to making SUVs when the market wanted migh MPG cheap hybrids.

Unions are NOT perfect but their slowing has cost the economy so much. And removed so much productivity and motivation. This going into law will SLOWLY start the process back towards growth. However, I do not plan to think all will be solved when it is signed into law. We MUST also give companies the resources they need to utilize the growth of motivation. Solar Power

Your description of non-union shops has been almost exactly my experience with union shops. The unions that I dealt with all my working life were far more politically oriented than the non-union shops. The non-union companies (for the most part) were all about profit (you do a good job, you keep it). The union shops were all about cronyism and least work for most pay. And it hasn't just recently become that way. I'm talking about Unions dating back to the mid '70s.

CaptainHaplo · 03-15-09, 12:16 PM

Zachstar

I am not real clear on something. "This tactic ends that "You unionize and we leave" crap." How would this law STOP businesses from closing their doors if a union comes in thru whatever process? Is there a clause that says once a union is in the door, the company can't close down or shut its doors?

I also didn't see any reasoning on why a secret ballot is a bad thing. Can you give reasoning why a public ballot is preferable to a private one, given its obvious dangers of abuse? *Note I state again I could support a private vote handled timely and not months down the road.

If you could help me understand these two points, I can consider my views further. Thanks!

03-13-09, 07:15 PM	#16
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Its just union hate from the usual sources. Seriously its like some make this to mean the end of the world. The only company who even has a point thinking like that is Wal Mart. Wal Mart has defeated UFCW time and again because of the difficult process to unionize. When it finally does happen they make a lame excuse and leave the city. So people hate the union afterwards. As for freedom being taken away. That is BS. 50 percent or more have to agree before the shop is unionized. Don't like it? Leave and don't make a scene doing it because nobody likes a party pooper. Good jobs will never be unionized. People dont want to just pay the union dues if they already have a great job. However, Jobs like that are falling quickly. With rising population there has been a rising amount of incidents of employee abuse. This law will end that to an extent by the FEAR of unions. The fear of unionizing will get management to treat employees better companies to adopt better conditions that while a short term loss will be a long term gain when they dont have to negotiate union contracts. What I am seeing here is two sides on the "No free choice act!" side. #1 It will give the commies more power! This continued wrong statement from those who cant get over the cold war is just flat out crap and not worth even discussing. If you think unions are communism you need to get an education. #2 It will ruin the economy! During the growth of unions the middle class saw a huge REAL increase (Unlike the bubble based growth after the Union killing years of Regan and Bush Sr.) in numbers. The nation had more spending money and people actually had time to spend it. The only economy Unions harm is China's as places like Wal Mart which take cheap buy prices as an excuse for huge markups and bad employee policy (Tho I personally will admit the employees there are treated better then some Union Shops that slip under the radar) There is no #3 as there is no arguement to be made when you base it on the lie that Unions get uber spying powers or some other BS. If one wants to be anti-union so be it but dont base it on BS. __________________

03-13-09, 08:31 PM	#17
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Well every bit of experience i've had with unions tells me that the "cure" will be worse than the disease. Unions pretty much kill companies, especially small ones. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

03-14-09, 09:38 AM	#19
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	August- I am not sure your understand what the unions here is trying to do.... Say they get 15% of the people in a company to back forming a union. Ok - they get those 15% to start telling the coworkers - on the side - you better sign on - cuz if you don't - when it goes thru - your going to be seen as an "outsider". The union won't want to stand up hard for you because you didnt stand up for it..... Now you get pressure to sign on - even when you may not want it. The problem here is that instead of having a "secret ballot vote" like has always been done - your view on the matter is now PUBLIC to the union. Under the current rules - if you get enough signatures on the card - you force a vote. The vote is secret - so just like our elections its YOUR choice - no one can villify or punish you for voting your own thoughts. However - this wants to take that away - and make it possible for one side or the other to find out how you voted, and depending on the outcome, perhaps use that against you. I have no problem with letting unions have a voice if the workers want to form one. But doing it this way means that the unions have an ability to strong arm the workers to create one. Whats wrong with the voters having a private ballot? If they get 51% in that ballot, the union wins. Not one supporter of this bill has shown WHY allowing the workers the privacy of a secret ballot hurts them. The only attempt I have heard in any discussions I have had on this was that its SO hard to get 30% signed on to force the vote. Well if you can't get 30% to sign on to force the vote -why do you think your going to get 51%? But if you can force a "public" vote - then you can use fear to pressure those who would choose otherwise. That is dishonest. This is merely an attempt to change the process to favor unions as organizations over the rights of the workers. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-14-09, 10:58 AM	#20
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I understand your concerns Haplo and share them to some extent, but the fact is it's a two way street. The jobs of union supporters in a company that votes non union are just as threatened. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

03-14-09, 02:08 PM	#22
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	The quick card check is there to PREVENT abuse. Under the current system employers have plenty of time to replace those who might vote in the union and worse use underhand strong arm tactics to "encourage" people to vote against their best interests. Yes there will always be instances where people who vote no are outsiders but that will be rare because these days there is VERY little middle ground between a good job and a bad job. If people are coming to work every day keeping an eye on the clock and mentally begging it to move faster they will likely overwhelmingly vote in a union. Because the employer did not make a good enough attempt to prevent such an action by bettering employee relations. __________________

03-14-09, 03:56 PM	#23
Neptunus Rex Frogman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 294 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I don't think any of you have an understanding of unionized labor history here. Secret ballots were mandated when employees and their families who did not support unionizing were being harassed, threatened, even murdered by the unionizers. And don't give me coincidence BS. If this bill passes, it will drag labor right back to the early 20th century. I was in a union when I firsted started working full time and I hate unions as a result. Only a moron gives up his right to negotiate for himself. Unions breed mediocrity and that's something that the USA does not need, now or in the future. __________________ Neptunus Rex sends "In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, we owe it to the Democrats to show their president the exact same kind of respect and loyalty that they have shown our recent Republican president." A.C. 11-5-08

03-14-09, 06:40 PM	#24
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Zachstar 3 flaws in your argument. #1 Regarding a secret ballot - an employer doesn't KNOW how any person voted, so there is no chance for them to single out individuals and punish them. However - the "card check" would enable both the unions and the company to see who voted what. If the union vote is no - the people who voted yes could also be "punished" by the company for their vote. A secret ballot also protects them. #2 It is the right of a business to hire or fire an individual. You do not have "right" to work wherever you want. If a worker is "agitating" for a union to the detriment of his or her job, or simply not performing to expectations then the company should be able to release them. Not to mention - last time I checked, a company didnt call me and tell me I had to go to work for them. They make you an offer - and if you think its fair then you accept - if you don't like it for whatever reason, you turn it down. Its called getting what your worth. This "collective bargaining" crap is nothing more than "we all agreed to things individually to come here and do our job under specific, individual terms. A binding employment "contract" or agreement if you will. However, now that we can all walk out and put the company over a barrel, we think we will use this leverage to "renegotiate" and thus break OUR side of the agreement with you - the company. If you have a problem with us breaking our word - talk to our union rep. Have a nice day." #3 There is documented history of unions using strongarm tactics - both on non-members and members alike. There are protections under the law currently that prevent companies from abusing individual employees. Making it public who voted how protects no one. If the union wins - those who voted no are on the "outside" - as history has proven. If the union loses - those who voted yes are likely to be pushed out the door by management. How does this protect anyone? If no one knows how you, individually, voted - then your safe from repercussions regardless of how it goes. My uncle was a Union president - and after he left the post he got injured. The union screwed him worse than the company ever did. Why? Because it was easier to line their pockets than to fight for a worker. The IDEA of unions has some minor merit, but in practice they are more concerned over their own power than they are acting on behalf of their members. This is why Union membership is down so low, and why Unions are PUSHING so hard to force their way into areas - with legislation like this as proof of it. If Unions truly worked - then more normal workers WOULD form or join them. As it is, people don't want them, because they get little real value out of it, and often times are forced into situations, or actions, they don't personally approve of. For example, striking when they would rather not - or the really big one that has gotten so many to LEAVE the union - the unions supporting politicians - using union dues - IE members money - without the consent of the members. This idea that a public ballot protects the worker is just not logical in any way. You worry about people being fired - ok fine - shorten the "vote" time to be one weak after the 30% criteria is met. If a company wants to oppose it - then they better get their $hit together and present it to the workers. Same for the Union folks pushing for it. If 25% of the business is laid off that week - then the Employment Securities Commission (or your state's equivilant) will be ALL over that company for violations of employment law. But make it public is to invite abuses - from both sides. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-14-09, 07:35 PM	#25
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	While I strongly disagree I atleast want to thank you partially for atleast using the arguement of effects of unionizing on employees and not the expected and outrageous arguement of what it does for buisness bottom line or price effects on customers (The dumbest arguement ever against raising the minimum wage) While I agree with (If you do not perform you ought to be fired) this is getting more and more not the case with firings these days. Sadly even in unionized shops. Where a cook is fired for having to stay home sick while a Cashier is kept on despite theft of company resources because she has a hot ass or the guy is a paintball buddy. With a union in place there is atleast a chance that the Cashier's actions will be noted to higher ups that will step in with an investigation. This happens less and less in nonunion shops where one just has to leave and hear about next month how the cashier was finally fired and jailed after permanantly damaging the buisness. BTW anyone being UAW up as an example is ruining their arguement. The auto crisis happened because the companies failed to modernize and be able to pay the legacy costs. There was some sillyness in the contract but none of it was killer compared to making SUVs when the market wanted migh MPG cheap hybrids. Unions are NOT perfect but their slowing has cost the economy so much. And removed so much productivity and motivation. This going into law will SLOWLY start the process back towards growth. However, I do not plan to think all will be solved when it is signed into law. We MUST also give companies the resources they need to utilize the growth of motivation. Solar Power __________________

03-14-09, 09:58 PM	#26
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Zach - I think we agree on some areas. Your welcome for trying to deal with your reasons. I think the give and take of a true discussion requires me to look at your points and you to look at mine, so I thank you for bringing up specifics as well. I can see the problem with delaying a vote or having it scheduled 3-6 months out once the required number of sign ons happen. Sure, the company ditching people because they would vote in a union is wrong. But that could be solved by expediting the process. That is something I could support. Why is it necessary to allow the union pushers and the company to SEE how you, me or joe the janitor voted? Shouldn't they just get the results and have to live with them? A "public" vote has way too many negatives - and I honestly don't see any positives. What I don't really understand, and perhaps you can make clear - is why a "secret" ballot - is a bad thing? You also mentioned Wal-mart. Now I don't think you were trying to single them out, though you may have been. Doesn't really matter, the point is you talked about how when a store or locale would unionize, they would just close the store with some type of excuse. If this goes thru and thus creates more unionized workplaces, aren't more companies going to do the same thing, thus exacerbating economic hardships in the affected areas? Now I admit I have an anti-union bias. This is because I see it as people who individually agreed to work under specific terms - wages, benefits, etc. Each person made that agreement with the company. Then a union forms, and those workers now can look at the company and basically say "screw you, we can all walk out and pretty much shut you down, so give us more." If they had not agreed to their own individual terms with the company that would be one thing, but they did. In essence, they are - each and every one - abrogating their agreement without cause just because they can, to get more out of their employer. I hate to put it so bluntly, but isn't that basically dishonest and unethical? I look forward to your responses on these points. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

03-14-09, 10:47 PM	#27
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	This tactic ends that "You unionize and we leave" crap. Wal Mart is going to unionize. They had the money to increase pay and assist the employees to keep them happy and then it would be the employees telling the unions to piss off. If a company wants to leave because it has been unionized so be it. If its a bad company that refuses to deal with the issues it will be unionized again. Despite how red some place might seem. If people are staring at the clock begging for it to move faster just to get away. The place will be unionized. There are situations where unions are used to squeeze every last ounce out of the company. but that is only in rare cases. And its not dishonest to feel that the work you do deserves more. For instance if minimum wage had kept up with inflation we would be at nearly 15 USD an hour. Am I unethical for thinking that I deserve atleast 10 USD for working my butt off at a grocery? (I get min wage AND I am unionized makes sence eh?) There is no way outside of maybe UAW that a Union can truely squeeze every last ounce from a company. I know that because it was MY line back when I was Anti-Union. That is because a happy workforce works better with less accidents and less incident meaning better results. The auto workforce at ford and GM is some of the best in the world. But that means jack crap if they are happily making SUVs instead of Cheap hybrids that the market demands. The giant Anti-Union efforts of the banks, Wal Mart, Home Depot, and other comapnies are simply because of a fantasy that Unions are deadly commie snakes that want to destroy them because of their size. Instead of giving people a fair shake. If wages get better people will spend more. That will benefit the economy. __________________

03-15-09, 12:16 PM	#29
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Zachstar I am not real clear on something. "This tactic ends that "You unionize and we leave" crap." How would this law STOP businesses from closing their doors if a union comes in thru whatever process? Is there a clause that says once a union is in the door, the company can't close down or shut its doors? I also didn't see any reasoning on why a secret ballot is a bad thing. Can you give reasoning why a public ballot is preferable to a private one, given its obvious dangers of abuse? *Note I state again I could support a private vote handled timely and not months down the road. If you could help me understand these two points, I can consider my views further. Thanks! __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo