Michigan, Workers must not have a choice! Vote Union

[jeninflorida]

They also made a lot of those people filthy rich. I imagine that those employees probably thought they'd lose out if they unionized.

oh Merc, I see personal growth. Congrats!

Yes workers made a ton of money. workers actually wanted to work those hours as they were sucked in to the hype of the product and creating something great.

and do you agree that the union would add no value?

 

[chillywilly2]

lets jump over to one of my favorite topics. Imagine, if Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, Paypal, Twitter, and ... were union "shop" companies.

programmers for example (For the companies listed above during the 90's) would work 60-100 hours a week. Microsoft was infamous for workers living in their office during the week.

now if the union came in to Microsoft during the 90's would "they" have allowed that?

Unions infiltrate at companies where employees are being treated unfairly.

If you treat your employees fairly then you shouldn't have to worry about them ganging up on you and forming a union to fight for their rights.

 

[mercury14]

oh Merc, I see personal growth. Congrats!

Yes workers made a ton of money. workers actually wanted to work those hours as they were sucked in to the hype of the product and creating something great.

and do you agree that the union would add no value?

In that circumstance probably not. But I don't have all the facts.

 

[seamus221]

If you had the choice would you choose to be in a union or choose to make less money and worse benefits? What would your family want you to choose?

what a dated question!
Check with your state labor board and see what your job skill set is listed at and if the company your working for has any benefits its not 1920 wage rates,working conditions and hours are all set , so why pay a union dues and have your money go for political favors !
You the worker can now keep more of what you work for and just how is that a bad thing?
40 years all the unions ever done is strike,attack and run business over seas!

 

[PoppingTom]

oh Merc, I see personal growth. Congrats!

Yes workers made a ton of money. workers actually wanted to work those hours as they were sucked in to the hype of the product and creating something great.

and do you agree that the union would add no value?

Listen, Jen, you got one point: people should have the choice to be in a union or not. I'm living in a country where people have the choice, and unions had to stop their socialist behavior and do some serious action to prove their importance.

But looking on the Microsoft or Apple topic, you forgot one important thing: their high wage segments were only kept in America because it's mainly creative work. High tech specialists are rare and always overpayed, the hierarchies are low, the opportunity to make a lot of money in short amount of time is always in handy distance, so the motivation of these workers will always be high, and one man can make the million dollar difference.

But this only affects those people who creates the iPhone. Not the ones who build it.

Those ones are in China, at Foxconn, and some of them commited suicide because of low payment. Their problem without a union is their fungibility.

Same problem was on the car workers. And thats why unions rised up. If they wouldn't add any value to society, why are they exist, why are they that strong? You know it: because somebody have to do the poor work, and those workers will never be in such a creative position like an iPone engineer at Apple. Without unions, for them there would never be any improvements .

But to be honest: if employees would always pay fair and keep their workers in high motivation, there would be no need for a union. That's what even unionists are saying.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

oh Merc, I see personal growth. Congrats!

Yes workers made a ton of money. workers actually wanted to work those hours as they were sucked in to the hype of the product and creating something great.

and do you agree that the union would add no value?

That's great if they wanted to work extra hours. Of course no union contract prevents workers from working more than 40 hours a week.

 

[Wyldfire]

Answer my question please.

If the question is an open one I shall.

No I would not join a union. The pay and benefits differential is not sufficient to make up the loses I would incur when (not if) the union chooses to strike to force the company to raise rates or benefits. In the short term the benefits might outweigh the negatives, but with union dues increasing regularly to pay the raises of the union reps and things like the christmas parties, the pay increase becomes questionable as well.

Not to mention, remember what happened with Hostess? Bet the union regrets making the decision to strike now that their members are no longer employeed and cannot pay their dues anymore.

As an aside on the subject of unions, I believe when they were first formed they were formed for all of the right reasons and were necessary. In this day and age I find myself questioning their utility. Are they really helping or have they become a jaded corrupt systemthat lines the pockets of those who find themselves in charge?

Just my (becoming more informed everyday) opinion on the topic.

 

[jeninflorida]

If the question is an open one I shall.

No I would not join a union. The pay and benefits differential is not sufficient to make up the loses I would incur when (not if) the union chooses to strike to force the company to raise rates or benefits. In the short term the benefits might outweigh the negatives, but with union dues increasing regularly to pay the raises of the union reps and things like the christmas parties, the pay increase becomes questionable as well.

Not to mention, remember what happened with Hostess? Bet the union regrets making the decision to strike now that their members are no longer employeed and cannot pay their dues anymore.

As an aside on the subject of unions, I believe when they were first formed they were formed for all of the right reasons and were necessary. In this day and age I find myself questioning their utility. Are they really helping or have they become a jaded corrupt systemthat lines the pockets of those who find themselves in charge?

Just my (becoming more informed everyday) opinion on the topic.

Well, if you ask me I do not believe the union leaders do not regret any actions with Hostess and still view the action as a union victory

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If the question is an open one I shall.

No I would not join a union. The pay and benefits differential is not sufficient to make up the loses I would incur when (not if) the union chooses to strike to force the company to raise rates or benefits. In the short term the benefits might outweigh the negatives, but with union dues increasing regularly to pay the raises of the union reps and things like the christmas parties, the pay increase becomes questionable as well.

Not to mention, remember what happened with Hostess? Bet the union regrets making the decision to strike now that their members are no longer employeed and cannot pay their dues anymore.

As an aside on the subject of unions, I believe when they were first formed they were formed for all of the right reasons and were necessary. In this day and age I find myself questioning their utility. Are they really helping or have they become a jaded corrupt systemthat lines the pockets of those who find themselves in charge?

Just my (becoming more informed everyday) opinion on the topic.

I don't think you remember what happened with Hostess.

If you (employees) have a choice in joining a union, why would the union strike? The non-union people would still come in to work.

 

[julybaby04]

I have seen this from both sides. My dad worked in the tire and rubber industry. He hired in as labor and was union. He later became a manager. During his labor days they did strike at times. He did not picket, from what I remember as I was very young. I do remember him going to work, crossing picket lines as a manager because they had to come in to keep the plant operational. I remember hearing my dad telling my mom not to worry....but she did anyway. I remember my dad having to get his car window fixed because of a bottle thrown at it

I too worked at that plant one summer during my college years. I was required to join the union, even though the summer hires were only there for three months.

 

[Wyldfire]

I don't think you remember what happened with Hostess.

If you (employees) have a choice in joining a union, why would the union strike? The non-union people would still come in to work.

The Union will strike when and if they feel they can obtain higher wages or benefits for their members. They on occasion screw the pooch when they choose to use excessive force on the employer (as with Hostess), and on occasion (Again, as with Hostess) they over-reach an allready overstrained employer and they kill the compnay or, again as with Hostess, accelerate the end of the company.

I remember an episode of Union striking in California that did severe damage to the Union members and the Union would not give in until many members were near homeless. The Grocers did not have to give in and they did NOT give in to the Unions demands. They did however give the members their jobs back and gave them a lesser bonus.

And here's something to think on about those non-union employees, how many are there in any company that is a Union shop? In most of those cases, the only non-union employees in said shop are management. So, let me guess the minority of the managers should have to maintain the business so that the workers may sit by and blackmail their way into better benefits than their superiors?

Let's take another example. Did you know that many UAW Union members receive superior pay and benefits to their non-Union managers? The reason this happens is that the business has to give management less pay so they can afford the Union workers who are, on the whole, less well educated and doing dutied that are menial when compared to management.

Tell me again why the Unions should be allowed to stay in business? In this economy, and with the current employment situation, businesses are ripe to cut Union ties the moment contracts are due. There are more than enough unemployeed who would be happy with the work.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The Union will strike when and if they feel they can obtain higher wages or benefits for their members. They on occasion screw the pooch when they choose to use excessive force on the employer (as with Hostess), and on occasion (Again, as with Hostess) they over-reach an allready overstrained employer and they kill the compnay or, again as with Hostess, accelerate the end of the company.

I remember an episode of Union striking in California that did severe damage to the Union members and the Union would not give in until many members were near homeless. The Grocers did not have to give in and they did NOT give in to the Unions demands. They did however give the members their jobs back and gave them a lesser bonus.

And here's something to think on about those non-union employees, how many are there in any company that is a Union shop? In most of those cases, the only non-union employees in said shop are management. So, let me guess the minority of the managers should have to maintain the business so that the workers may sit by and blackmail their way into better benefits than their superiors?

Let's take another example. Did you know that many UAW Union members receive superior pay and benefits to their non-Union managers? The reason this happens is that the business has to give management less pay so they can afford the Union workers who are, on the whole, less well educated and doing dutied that are menial when compared to management.

Tell me again why the Unions should be allowed to stay in business? In this economy, and with the current employment situation, businesses are ripe to cut Union ties the moment contracts are due. There are more than enough unemployeed who would be happy with the work.

Most of what you claim in your post, simply isn't true. Here's where you're incorrect.

1. If UAW workers receive more than managers it's because the company wants them to. No one forced management to sign that contract. Other than providing minimum wage they do not HAVE to provide any specific salary.

2. Where are these unemployed who would be happy to have the jobs? How many ran in to work at Hostess?

3. Unions have never blackmailed anyone.

4. Unions are only in business when workers feel they are not being treated fairly. If all employers treat their employees fairly, unions won't need to exist.

 

[jeninflorida]

I have seen this from both sides. My dad worked in the tire and rubber industry. He hired in as labor and was union. He later became a manager. During his labor days they did strike at times. He did not picket, from what I remember as I was very young. I do remember him going to work, crossing picket lines as a manager because they had to come in to keep the plant operational. I remember hearing my dad telling my mom not to worry....but she did anyway. I remember my dad having to get his car window fixed because of a bottle thrown at it

I too worked at that plant one summer during my college years. I was required to join the union, even though the summer hires were only there for three months.

Sadly, most union members are terrorist

 

[jeninflorida]

Most of what you claim in your post, simply isn't true. Here's where you're incorrect.

1. If UAW workers receive more than managers it's because the company wants them to. No one forced management to sign that contract. Other than providing minimum wage they do not HAVE to provide any specific salary.

2. Where are these unemployed who would be happy to have the jobs? How many ran in to work at Hostess?

3. Unions have never blackmailed anyone.

4. Unions are only in business when workers feel they are not being treated fairly. If all employers treat their employees fairly, unions won't need to exist.

holy fuck batman, are you kidding me?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

holy fuck batman, are you kidding me?

I'm not Batman, but I am being serious.

If I'm wrong you should be able to find several examples to cite to prove me wrong.

 

[Liar]

holy fuck batman, are you kidding me?

You just wrote this,

Sadly, most union members are terrorist

so you don't get to ask that question.

 

[jeninflorida]

You just wrote this,



so you don't get to ask that question.

Yeah like during a union strike these people walk around like hippies looking for love.....and friendship

 

[julybaby04]

Most of what you claim in your post, simply isn't true. Here's where you're incorrect.

1. If UAW workers receive more than managers it's because the company wants them to. No one forced management to sign that contract. Other than providing minimum wage they do not HAVE to provide any specific salary.

2. Where are these unemployed who would be happy to have the jobs? How many ran in to work at Hostess?

3. Unions have never blackmailed anyone.

4. Unions are only in business when workers feel they are not being treated fairly. If all employers treat their employees fairly, unions won't need to exist.

I would disagree with #4.

When I worked in a plant that had a union for 3 months during the summer (they hired in college kids so the regular workers could rotate vacations), I had to join the union.

I was told by the union leader in my department which tire cords to work first as they paid more money. I told him there were so many of the "red" ones sitting around that needed to be done. He told me to go after the big money first (the department I worked in paid per piece as well as hourly rate).....and then work on the the "reds" if I had time. I never could get to the "reds" on my shift. I felt like I had to do what he said.

Also, at that time, we were working 6 days. That 6th day was time and half. The company wanted to "cut back" to a normal 5 day work week and the union was threatening to strike because of it. They did not strike while I was there. The workers were mad because they were going to lose their "extra" pay....they had overextended themselves and had bills to pay based on the overtime. That was not management's fault. That was the worker assuming the extra would always be there.....but there were prepared to strike if it was taken away....thereby not getting anything.

Never made sense to me and I was glad I was out of that situation before anything happened.

 

[QueenLevitra]

I would disagree with #4.

When I worked in a plant that had a union for 3 months during the summer (they hired in college kids so the regular workers could rotate vacations), I had to join the union.

I was told by the union leader in my department which tire cords to work first as they paid more money. I told him there were so many of the "red" ones sitting around that needed to be done. He told me to go after the big money first (the department I worked in paid per piece as well as hourly rate).....and then work on the the "reds" if I had time. I never could get to the "reds" on my shift. I felt like I had to do what he said.

Also, at that time, we were working 6 days. That 6th day was time and half. The company wanted to "cut back" to a normal 5 day work week and the union was threatening to strike because of it. They did not strike while I was there. The workers were mad because they were going to lose their "extra" pay....they had overextended themselves and had bills to pay based on the overtime. That was not management's fault. That was the worker assuming the extra would always be there.....but there were prepared to strike if it was taken away....thereby not getting anything.

Never made sense to me and I was glad I was out of that situation before anything happened.

Three words:

Load

Of

Crap

(as usual)

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It might be interesting to observe that Henry Ford instituted the $5/day in 1915 all by himself.


Of course, it did take unions to shake a few more shekels from his pockets in the '30's when he was still paying basically the same thing.

 

[QueenLevitra]

It might be interesting to observe that Henry Ford instituted the $5/day in 1915 all by himself.


Of course, it did take unions to shake a few more shekels from his pockets in the '30's when he was still paying basically the same thing.

Go to bed, AJ.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Go to bed, AJ.

Who??

 

[Wyldfire]

Most of what you claim in your post, simply isn't true. Here's where you're incorrect.

1. If UAW workers receive more than managers it's because the company wants them to. No one forced management to sign that contract. Other than providing minimum wage they do not HAVE to provide any specific salary.

No, they receive more because the Union overinflates the wages in contract negotiations. And trust me, if anyone knows the damage a Union strike can do it is the auto industry. Hence management HAS to suffer the lower payscale or the cost of automobiles becomes prohibitive to the market. Trust me, the auto manufacturers will make their profit, and trust me, they let management know good and damned well how the process works. Makes for great relations between management and Union workers.

2. Where are these unemployed who would be happy to have the jobs? How many ran in to work at Hostess?

LOL, you know as well as I do no matter how low of pay Hostess offered workers, the Union had allready sucked every bit of cream filling out of an allready damaged Twinkie. The company was allready in trouble, the Union simply struck the final nail.

3. Unions have never blackmailed anyone.

Ah, I see, you go with the line that it is "contract negotiations" and not a thinly veiled "protection racket". Carry on.

4. Unions are only in business when workers feel they are not being treated fairly. If all employers treat their employees fairly, unions won't need to exist.

Really? You're sure about that? Like I said earlier, the Unions once were necessary, but once the Reps got a taste of the good life, the Unions became a leech. They feed off of the companies, because after all they're evil and greedy and want to abuse the workforce right? They feed off of their members with dues, which are meant to pad the workers in times of strike, yet never quite seem to make up the slack, right? Unions exist in this day and age as a business unto itself.

But of course I'm wrong, right? You do know oh so much more about it don't ya Sarge?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

LOL, you know as well as I do no matter how low of pay Hostess offered workers, the Union had allready sucked every bit of cream filling out of an allready damaged Twinkie. The company was allready in trouble, the Union simply struck the final nail.

Complete bullshit.

Hostess union workers had already taken several pay cuts, that were used to fund golden parachutes for the Bain-style groups that bought the company. The final nail was struck by greedy venture capatalists who were more concerned with their wellbeing than the company's.

 

[julybaby04]

Three words:

Load

Of

Crap

(as usual)

...and of course, you were there, so you know.

You only make yourself look very silly in speaking of things which you have NO interest in yet alone NO facts about.

Perhaps the words you use to speak of my posts may be more accurate in describing your own view points and words you share.