login
Right to work states - MI (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-11 2:14 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Master  2277    Lake Norman, NC |  Subject: RE: Right to work states - MIThe way I see it with unions... Pros:
Cons:
I live in a "right to work" state. Basically it comes down to the simple fact that back in the early 1900s, companies abused workers and unions were needed to protect their rights, get them paid fairly and enforce safe working environments. Today, it all depends on competition and the ethics of the company. If companies are fair and act responsibly, there's no need for a union. If a company takes advantage of its workers, abuses and underpays them, a union is needed to help the workers. I don't think unions are needed on a regional or industry-basis, more like an individual company basis. And for public jobs in which they almost always run in the red, a union is practically required. Otherwise the budget deficits would paralyze those various services (i.e. teachers).
|
| 2012-12-11 2:18 PM in reply to: #4531068 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:09 PM It's good that you add enough value that your company deems you necessary to keep around. My point is, I have no problem with employers demanding and getting 100 percent from their employees, but to give them absolute power over their employees is very dangerous. Take the NFL for example. Without the players union, the owners to make more money would just say `We've put a salary cap on and are expanding the season to 20 games.' So, sometimes unions are good, especially if you play fantasy football. eta: quote marks got messed up, my bad. you're right, it is very dangerous...to both employee and empolyeer. how many quarterbacks are that team going to get if the owners cap out their salary when the other teams aren't? not many. so that team can't attract talent, and they fizzle out. same thing with a company. check meets balance. Edited by antlimon166 2012-12-11 2:20 PM |
| 2012-12-11 2:21 PM in reply to: #4531052 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary. |
| 2012-12-11 2:25 PM in reply to: #4531027 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI drewb8 - 2012-12-11 1:51 PM It's all a big pendulum. The purpose of a union isn't to make a company successful, it's to look out for the worker's interests. Not just on safety and hours in a workday, but on everything including wages, benefits, etc. If you look at what the unions have been able to win in the past you could probably argue they've been too successful for today's competitive economy, and now the pendulum is swinging back towards the companies favor. Eventually the companies will start treating the workers like cr*p again & there'll be a swing back towards the workers. There needs to be a balance between the company and the worker. What's good for one isn't always good for the other & right now globalization has thrown the old balance out of whack so it'll take some swings of the pendulum to figure out where the new equilibrium should be.
I think you make a good point about globalization. That alone has probably been the biggest hit to Unions to date. Before a company had no choice but to buckle under union pressure, but in today's world economy they have a lot more options and many companies have utilized those options. |
| 2012-12-11 2:27 PM in reply to: #4531092 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? this will never happen. a company that employees large numbers of people have shareholders to answer to. i understand the theory, but it just doesn't happen like that in a competitive free market system. |
| 2012-12-11 2:29 PM in reply to: #4531092 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? Firstly that would only work with salaried workers. Hourly workers get time and a half over 40 hours. See, those pesky labor laws making unions redundant again. If a company decides all salaried workers have to put in 60 or 70 hours a week for the same pay then that company is going to lose it's workforce very fast. And hence market share and would probably go out of business very fast. I fail to see how a union would be required for a person to quit that job and find another. I also fail to see why you'd WANT to continue to work for this company after having to be FORCED to back down by the union. Edited by TriRSquared 2012-12-11 2:30 PM |
| 2012-12-11 2:40 PM in reply to: #4531101 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? this will never happen. a company that employees large numbers of people have shareholders to answer to. i understand the theory, but it just doesn't happen like that in a competitive free market system. Actually that's where it'd work best. Thank goodness we have SOME stopgaps in place to prevent us from being a truly free-market economy. |
| 2012-12-11 2:43 PM in reply to: #4531107 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:29 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? Firstly that would only work with salaried workers. Hourly workers get time and a half over 40 hours. See, those pesky labor laws making unions redundant again. If a company decides all salaried workers have to put in 60 or 70 hours a week for the same pay then that company is going to lose it's workforce very fast. And hence market share and would probably go out of business very fast. I fail to see how a union would be required for a person to quit that job and find another. I also fail to see why you'd WANT to continue to work for this company after having to be FORCED to back down by the union. You're assuming people would rather NOT work than work for less money. People have to eat and despite what you think, not everybody wants to be on the government dole and being on welfare isn't that glamorous. So, yes, in a situation where the company said `Anybody who wants to quit can do so.' is doing so knowing that they're going to see a small attrition rate but probably not enough to actually reduce the efficacy of their workforce. In fact, I would contend that boardrooms across the nation, they're not only gambling on a high attrition rate, they're counting on it. |
| 2012-12-11 3:00 PM in reply to: #4531101 |
Champion 6999 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? this will never happen. a company that employees large numbers of people have shareholders to answer to. i understand the theory, but it just doesn't happen like that in a competitive free market system. aren't most of the shareholders the top people? |
| 2012-12-11 3:01 PM in reply to: #4531135 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:43 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:29 PM You're assuming people would rather NOT work than work for less money. People have to eat and despite what you think, not everybody wants to be on the government dole and being on welfare isn't that glamorous. So, yes, in a situation where the company said `Anybody who wants to quit can do so.' is doing so knowing that they're going to see a small attrition rate but probably not enough to actually reduce the efficacy of their workforce. In fact, I would contend that boardrooms across the nation, they're not only gambling on a high attrition rate, they're counting on it. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? Firstly that would only work with salaried workers. Hourly workers get time and a half over 40 hours. See, those pesky labor laws making unions redundant again. If a company decides all salaried workers have to put in 60 or 70 hours a week for the same pay then that company is going to lose it's workforce very fast. And hence market share and would probably go out of business very fast. I fail to see how a union would be required for a person to quit that job and find another. I also fail to see why you'd WANT to continue to work for this company after having to be FORCED to back down by the union. Unskilled or semi skilled workers almost always hourly. So for these people it would not be an issue. More work = more pay. Labor laws FTW! As for skilled workers, there is not as big of an unemployment problem as most people think. A large percentage of skilled professionals could find another job within weeks. While there are some industries where this is not true, it is for the vast majority. |
| 2012-12-11 3:12 PM in reply to: #4531098 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI tuwood - 2012-12-11 1:25 PM Well it wasn't about a company caving to a union before, in the past the unions were able to cover all the workers in an industry so they were basically able to make a deal with the companies. They basically had a mutually beneficial arrangement and said, "ok, you give us middle class wages and benefits and we'll give you a consistent work force and promise not to strike." And that system worked great for decades after wwII until it didn't any more. drewb8 - 2012-12-11 1:51 PM It's all a big pendulum. The purpose of a union isn't to make a company successful, it's to look out for the worker's interests. Not just on safety and hours in a workday, but on everything including wages, benefits, etc. If you look at what the unions have been able to win in the past you could probably argue they've been too successful for today's competitive economy, and now the pendulum is swinging back towards the companies favor. Eventually the companies will start treating the workers like cr*p again & there'll be a swing back towards the workers. There needs to be a balance between the company and the worker. What's good for one isn't always good for the other & right now globalization has thrown the old balance out of whack so it'll take some swings of the pendulum to figure out where the new equilibrium should be.
I think you make a good point about globalization. That alone has probably been the biggest hit to Unions to date. Before a company had no choice but to buckle under union pressure, but in today's world economy they have a lot more options and many companies have utilized those options. It is possible to have strong unions and strong companies. Germany has some of the strongest unions and one of the highest amount of unionization in the world and at the same time one of the strongest economies and some of the best companies. It doesn't have to be either the company fleeces the workers or the workers fleece the company, there just have to be mechanisms in place so that each has an interest in seeing the other succeed instead of just looking out for their own bottom line and those mechanisms are pretty weak here right now. |
| 2012-12-11 3:18 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Master 1730 Straight outta Compton | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. |
| 2012-12-11 3:26 PM in reply to: #4531205 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. I'm union and I pizz and moan about a few colleagues for not doing their fair share, being stupid, lazy, etc. Aggravates me to no end. |
| 2012-12-11 3:27 PM in reply to: #4531205 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. All generalizations are bad. |
| 2012-12-11 3:30 PM in reply to: #4531226 |
Master 1730 Straight outta Compton | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM All generalizations are bad. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. It's not a generalization. We use the stats to prove that non-union guys are better, Tony. They get stuff fixed quicker for less money. The customer pays less. Everyone wins. |
| 2012-12-11 3:35 PM in reply to: #4531175 |
Extreme Veteran 787 The Woodlands/Magnolia, TX. | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI chirunner134 - 2012-12-11 3:00 PM antlimon166 - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:21 PM TriRSquared - 2012-12-11 2:02 PM Sure on the surface that seems easy -- the businessowner should have the right to set salaries and benefits as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't work for all companies. Let's say you have 50,000 employees and you decide you want to expand hours without adding pay, as you see fit as the owner. If you're an individual, employee you could NOT protest that as the company could just fire you or let you quit and replace you quickly as you're unskilled labor. If you're unionized, you could protest that. Now, unions are, again, getting out of hand with the reluctance to waver on any pension reform or demanding higher wages for no more work and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary.mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:37 PM If you're OK with businessowners being constrained by only OSHA and minimum wage laws, then you wouldn't mind if the CEO of your company walked in and said `Everybody is going to be making minimum wage, starting today. If you don't like it, you can all quit and go find other employment.' He's within his rights and abiding by the law, so what's the problem? This is perfectly legal is lots and lots of businesses including mine. I'd be a fool to do it as everyone would leave and I'd go under. But it's my right. What exactly is wrong with being able to set salaries and benefits as the owner sees fit? this will never happen. a company that employees large numbers of people have shareholders to answer to. i understand the theory, but it just doesn't happen like that in a competitive free market system. aren't most of the shareholders the top people? i'd say no. fin institutions, mutual funds, etc. are the big holders usually...all are people expecting a return on their investment. |
| 2012-12-11 3:48 PM in reply to: #4531205 |
Expert 1194 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 4:18 PM I have to agree with this a little, I'm a manager for a large corporation, currently employee 94 associates at my location and the employees that come from a union background seem to be harder to deal with overall IMO. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. |
| 2012-12-11 3:49 PM in reply to: #4531231 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:30 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM All generalizations are bad. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. It's not a generalization. We use the stats to prove that non-union guys are better, Tony. They get stuff fixed quicker for less money. The customer pays less. Everyone wins. I took a telecom class several years ago down in Atlanta. There were four union guys from one of the Bell companies that came to the class as well. It was a 12 hour a day boot camp style class that required a lot of teamwork and such where everyone had to get their labs working for the rest of the class to integrate things together. The union guys would get up and walk out several times a day right in the middle of lecture and be gone for a good 30 minutes because, and i quote, "our contract stipulates that we get four breaks a day and that includes training". The rest of the class had to stop and wait for them to get back. Then at 5:00 they just get up and leave, even though the class goes until 8:00 that night. Everyone in the class was pissed. After the second day we changed all their passwords to lock them out of their system and I did most of their labs for them. They were totally fine with it. Another example: I know these aren't indicative of all union workers, but they most certainly are the ones that give unions a bad name. They are also the ones I think of when people come to the defense of unions as a whole. There are bad unions that need to be destroyed, and I'm sure there are good unions that are doing a good job. ok, off my soap box. |
| 2012-12-11 4:13 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Master 1730 Straight outta Compton | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI And the thing that does suck is most of the guys (and it is mostly guys) on the front lines are directed by their superiors in the Unions to jerk around. I have buddies who are IBEW and CWA, and they won't come out and say it, but they're pretty darn smart in how they go about airing their "issues". Slowdowns are common due to disputes, sabotage happens often when negotiations aren't going well. Don't think I'm telling the truth? Ask any small business owner in Manhattan (Verizon monopoly) with a T1 or fractional line into their business how well that line runs when the Unions are on strike or hardcore negotiations are going. 5 days or more without service puts many of these firms out of business. How's that anyone's benefit? So that they Union guy doesn't have to pay for his health insurance? Or get 4 breaks a day? |
| 2012-12-11 4:22 PM in reply to: #4531231 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:30 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM All generalizations are bad. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. It's not a generalization. We use the stats to prove that non-union guys are better, Tony. They get stuff fixed quicker for less money. The customer pays less. Everyone wins. Wouldn't it depend on the worker? I mean, I know plenty of guys who are union workers who do superb work. And really, by definition, what you're doing is making a generalization, that is, an assumption about a person based on his or her affiliation with a certain group. |
| 2012-12-11 4:27 PM in reply to: #4531354 |
Master 1730 Straight outta Compton | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:22 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:30 PM Wouldn't it depend on the worker? I mean, I know plenty of guys who are union workers who do superb work. And really, by definition, what you're doing is making a generalization, that is, an assumption about a person based on his or her affiliation with a certain group. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM All generalizations are bad. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. It's not a generalization. We use the stats to prove that non-union guys are better, Tony. They get stuff fixed quicker for less money. The customer pays less. Everyone wins. I completely agree with you that some Union workers are phenomenal individuals. I stand behind my statement because the goal of any Union negotiation (at least in telecommunications) is to create inefficiencies in the processes in order to boost the number of unionized employees needed to do the work. Many jobs in my field can be outsourced (tech support, engineering, etc) but you NEED boots on the ground to go out and fix physical assets. Unions have the monopoly here and exploit it. It's a fact that non-unionized work crews are not encumbered by Union work rules, and therefore are more efficient. I see the stats at the end of every month. |
| 2012-12-11 4:37 PM in reply to: #4531205 |
| Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA.
I get it |
| 2012-12-11 6:09 PM in reply to: #4531363 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:27 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-11 3:22 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:30 PM Wouldn't it depend on the worker? I mean, I know plenty of guys who are union workers who do superb work. And really, by definition, what you're doing is making a generalization, that is, an assumption about a person based on his or her affiliation with a certain group. mr2tony - 2012-12-11 2:27 PM mcgilmartin - 2012-12-11 3:18 PM All generalizations are bad. Just out of curiosity, for those of you beating the drum for labor unions and how wonderful they are.... do you work with a unionized workforce on a daily basis? I do, and I can tell you I'm 1000% against the very idea of them every day. Collectively, union people are some of the laziest, most self-entitled crybabies I have ever seen. Take a union guy, and take a non-union guy and give them the same task. I GUARANTEE the non-union guy will do it in half them time and without complaints. The union guy will bi**h and moan about the conditions, get three of his pals to direct traffic, supervise safety, and a third to do the paperwork while he completes the task. Think I'm kidding? I've lived my telecom life playing the union B.S. games. Anytime a third party is available to fix a circuit I'll take that over the IBEW or CWA. It's not a generalization. We use the stats to prove that non-union guys are better, Tony. They get stuff fixed quicker for less money. The customer pays less. Everyone wins. I completely agree with you that some Union workers are phenomenal individuals. I stand behind my statement because the goal of any Union negotiation (at least in telecommunications) is to create inefficiencies in the processes in order to boost the number of unionized employees needed to do the work. Many jobs in my field can be outsourced (tech support, engineering, etc) but you NEED boots on the ground to go out and fix physical assets. Unions have the monopoly here and exploit it. It's a fact that non-unionized work crews are not encumbered by Union work rules, and therefore are more efficient. I see the stats at the end of every month. And here is another broad generalization..... people seek what they want... and if they want to be lazy and guaranteed a job... what better to be in than a union. If you are a go getter and want to work for your own destiny... then a Union is not for you. My industry is mostly union, and I want no part of it. I have been to union plants, and could not comprehend how it was even running with the level of skill they had. I have advanced much more quickly doing what I do and would have waited around for seniority anywhere else. And I earned it. Bottom line is "The Union" is only as strong as the workers, and if all you want to do is sit around all day lawyering your contract on what you are only "required" to do... then I do not want to work there. |
| 2012-12-11 7:31 PM in reply to: #4530772 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI Looks like the Governor signed it into law. It’s Official: Mich. Right-To-Work Bill Becomes Law This should be interesting. |
| 2012-12-11 11:16 PM in reply to: #4531536 |
| Subject: RE: Right to work states - MI tuwood - 2012-12-11 7:31 PM Looks like the Governor signed it into law. It’s Official: Mich. Right-To-Work Bill Becomes Law This should be interesting.
Yes it should, pretty quite here so far at work in a Automotive plant in Flint Michigan |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK