Unions or Un-Unions

• ernest_t_bass

  

  Con_Alma;545809 wrote:Did you dislike him?
  
  Is it better now with him gone?

  
  This is his first year gone. People still tip-toe around, but it's starting to get better. The man used to walk down the hallways and not look at anyone. Just not friendly at all, and that doesn't work well in a school. Our new super is just the opposite (at least on that end). Very friendly, always walking the hallways greeting people, etc.
• Con_Alma

  Sounds like there's a difference in both culture and environment now. I am glad to hear that.
  
  Maybe you can better understand that if I had an employee that I didn't like I would seek to get the same type of improvement that it sounds like your place of employment is starting to realize. If I didn't like you I would end our employer/employee agreement.
  
  Employers employ those who bring value to their operation. When an employee doesn't bring value and in our example actually has a negative net cost associated to them long term, it can be a disadvantage to both parties to maintain that relationship.
  
  It's simply best for both of us.
• KnightRyder

  

  actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies. tired of the same old argument from the weak. "unions are ruining america" you are just afraid to anyone get paid right. the typical conservative fear that some one will get some thing for free and it aint gonna be you. when this country was booming unions were at the center of the economy , but fools dont remember that . all they want is more for the top 2%.unions need to take a page out the management hand book and start greasing politicians, to get laws enacted on their behalf.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies."
  
  That's the problem, unions don't work for companies anymore, they "work" for governments....and they don't make things, they are bureaucrats. What do you think the SEIU does?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  KnightRyder;546160 wrote:actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies. tired of the same old argument from the weak. "unions are ruining america" you are just afraid to anyone get paid right. the typical conservative fear that some one will get some thing for free and it aint gonna be you. when this country was booming unions were at the center of the economy , but fools dont remember that . all they want is more for the top 2%.unions need to take a page out the management hand book and start greasing politicians, to get laws enacted on their behalf.

  This post is so full of foolishness, that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with the parts that I bolded.
  
  "actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies"
  
  They quit giving in to companies a lonnnngggg time ago. Nowdays they (not all, but alot) are only interested in the sake of the union, and not the worker. Sure, there are valid grievances, but more often than not, the unions are more interested in grandstanding than anything else. How many times have we seen/read about unions striking themselves right out of a job?
  
  "the typical conservative fear that some one will get some thing for free and it aint gonna be you"
  
  Ooops! Maybe you shouldn't have said it like that. Cause it sure sounds to me like you're admitting that sometimes, the unions just might be on the make, eh?
  
  "unions need to take a page out the management hand book and start greasing politicians, to get laws enacted on their behalf"
  
  hahaha!!! Now I KNOW you're fool of ... I mean full of... it. Dude, what the hell do you think they're doing?
• KnightRyder

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;546177 wrote:"actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies."
  
  That's the problem, unions don't work for companies anymore, they "work" for governments....and they don't make things, they are bureaucrats. What do you think the SEIU does?

  what goverment do the teamsters, UAW, united steelworkers and the IEU work for?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Based on the current administration's policies, the U.S government. Who owns GM now? Supposedly the taxpayers, which is what, 50% of the population that actually pays taxes?
• KnightRyder

  

  CenterBHSFan;546355 wrote:This post is so full of foolishness, that I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with the parts that I bolded.
  
  "actually it time for the unions to regroup and quit giving in to companies"
  
  They quit giving in to companies a lonnnngggg time ago. Nowdays they (not all, but alot) are only interested in the sake of the union, and not the worker. Sure, there are valid grievances, but more often than not, the unions are more interested in grandstanding than anything else. How many times have we seen/read about unions striking themselves right out of a job?
  
  "the typical conservative fear that some one will get some thing for free and it aint gonna be you"
  
  Ooops! Maybe you shouldn't have said it like that. Cause it sure sounds to me like you're admitting that sometimes, the unions just might be on the make, eh?
  
  "unions need to take a page out the management hand book and start greasing politicians, to get laws enacted on their behalf"
  
  hahaha!!! Now I KNOW you're fool of ... I mean full of... it. Dude, what the hell do you think they're doing?

  
  your whole post is inane i will just have call bullshit on it. tell me have you ever been a elected official in a labor union? and if so what was the position? how many times have i read about unions striking themselves out of a job? actually never. i hear the mouth pieces for management always try to spin it that way. and how many times have read about companies bringing in strike breakers that can straight out of prison? i'm sure you are oblivious to that . when unions strike they strike for a reason, usually because the company violated a contract in which they negotiated. but i guess its ok for management to violate it. or they strike when the current contract expires. and no the unions dont grease politicians that shit ended back in days of jimmy hoffa. but none less you cant change the fact that when the unions had there fattest contracts the economy boomed.
• Belly35

  

  Thank you KnightRyder you have now confirmed my theory ..Union Workers/ Cardholding Member and Union Leader are : mindless individuals unable to make a conscious decision without a group butt buddy meaning, incapable of rational brain wave process on their own or in any type of communication were they have to answer without the union leadership spewing in their ear. Please do yourself a favor and go pull a chain around like you’re told because you are incapable of carrying a full load. Like all Union worker you have great potential but as long as you are suppressed and control by others you’ll be just worker bees… wood gather for a 50 gallon drum
• KnightRyder

  

  Belly35;546817 wrote:Thank you KnightRyder you have now confirmed my theory ..Union Workers/ Cardholding Member and Union Leader are : mindless individuals unable to make a conscious decision without a group butt buddy meaning, incapable of rational brain wave process on their own or in any type of communication were they have to answer without the union leadership spewing in their ear. Please do yourself a favor and go pull a chain around like you’re told because you are incapable of carrying a full load. Like all Union worker you have great potential but as long as you are suppressed and control by others you’ll be just worker bees… wood gather for a 50 gallon drum

  
  that was a nice copy and paste , too bad you didnt write that on your own. we both your mind is capable . maybe you should have done some more research before you copied the first thing you came across. then you would know that these days union leadership doesnt spew in anyones ears. it actually the opposite . but you wouldnt know that. like you wouldnt know about team concept. the union is the members and union leadership echos the voice of its members .
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Knight Ryder,
  
  I was never an rep at a union, but was a member of AFL-CIO for 6-1/2 years. I know what goes on. (btw, the ONLY time in my life that I ever got unemployment was when I was a member of a union. kind of ironic)
  Just because you claim to have never heard of a union striking themselves out of a job, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Ever hear of Ormet? That company was going bankrupt and the union still wanted more money. Yes, wrong is done on both sides, but when times are tough, who gainfully wins in a game of chicken? Those unions workers at Ormet didn't. Just another case of grandstanding by the union, who's upper levels never skipped a beat in their daily lives, while average workers were losing their homes. I had no allegiance to either Ormet or to the union, but a damn shame is a damn shame. Almost 2 years of watching it all happen on the news (WTOV9 and WTRF7), and reading about it in the papers (The Times Leader and The Intelligencer) everyday was enough to make anybody sick.
  Don't preach to me about the greatness of unions. They can hurt their workers just as much as they can help them. It's just the nature of the beast nowdays.
  Also, unions are consistant and dependable players/contributors in politics. Period. Do you ever watch the news or read your local papers? Maybe you missed it, because some unions like to call it "political education".
  
  OpenSecrets
  
  Seiu Cope (Service Employees International Union Committee On Political Education) 2010 - Money, Politics, Committees, Electi...
  
  Labor increases spending on ads in midterm campaign home stretch - TheHill.com
  
  UMWA ads target Maynard’s ties to Blankenship « Coal Tattoo
  
  There's a PAC for just about every organized labor union you can think of and the contributions are dominated by pacs that lean left:
  
  Political action committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  I'm sorry to say it but it's the people with the "nawwww, that stuff don't happen, anymore" that the world is passing by. They do theirselves NO favors.
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;546853 wrote:the union is the members and union leadership echos the voice of its members .

  Thanks for the laugh. Union leadership is all about keeping themselves employed by collecting your monthly dues and directing its membership how to vote so they - not their membership - benefit politically.
  
  The days of union "leadership" helping the membership get fair pay and better working environments are long, long gone.
• Glory Days

  

  fan_from_texas;545762 wrote:If a boss is firing lots of otherwise-qualified people solely because he doesn't like them, his place of employment will perform worse than some other place that doesn't fire otherwise-qualified people, both because of the added cost of hiring/firing, the reduction in morale and efficiency, and the fact that he'll have a lower-qualified workforce if he's firing lots of qualified people. That's the sort of problem that will sort itself out in the end, even without a union.
  
  For a concrete example, back in the day, major law firms wouldn't hire Jews. Rather than complaining and requesting that they be integrated, many Jewish lawyers started their own firms. Because they were just as talented but were denied the big money opportunities elsewhere, they managed to out-compete their old employers. Now many of the top firms are descendants of the Jewish firms, which in many cases have overtaken the old white-shoe WASPy places.
  
  In a competitive market, companies that operate with some sort of bias will be at a disadvantage.

  
  So Ernest is supposed to start his own school system?
• Glory Days

  

  CenterBHSFan;545367 wrote:I'm in agreeance with others when talking about this subject; and that is to bust up unions in the public sector.
  
  As far as all the other unions: I think we're past the point of worrying about fair wages, so a stop needs to be put to that crap. Also, there shouldn't be a focus on job security anymore, as that's pretty much a catch-22. Let them go on and focus on worker safety.

  
  what about the public unions that focus on worker safety?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Glory Days;546958 wrote:what about the public unions that focus on worker safety?

  
  You don't think that our government doesn't focus on their workers' safety?
  Or not enough?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  The argument that unions are needed in the public sector is so bogus it's almost funny.
  
  ALL government slots already have so many protections in place, anything a union provides is overkill to the point that you can't get a drunk fired, even if they show up drunk on the job multiple times.
  
  I know, because I just tried to get some type of punishment against this worker, and was stalled and stonewalled at every turn. The union rep told me privately he knew this woman was nothing but a drunk and non-productive, but he didn't care. It was his job to protect her and keep her on the job.
  
  Well, he succeeded. Long after I left that position -- she was still there, still drunk, and still on the job.
  
  And if you think that was just one egregious example of how awful public sector unions are, think again. Crap like that happens everywhere, and supervisors in public sector jobs are powerless to get rid of them and replace them with productive people.
• BGFalcons82

  

  KnightRyder;546479 wrote:how many times have i read about unions striking themselves out of a job? actually never.

  
  In 1981 the air traffic controllers union tried on Ronald Reagan....and lost everything. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
  
  I don't know how a huge union supporter such as yourself could have overlooked this one. It was a very significant story back in the day.
• tk421

  

  believer;546889 wrote:Thanks for the laugh. Union leadership is all about keeping themselves employed by collecting your monthly dues and directing its membership how to vote so they - not their membership - benefit politically.
  
  The days of union "leadership" helping the membership get fair pay and better working environments are long, long gone.

  
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;546997 wrote:In 1981 the air traffic controllers union tried on Ronald Reagan....and lost everything. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)
  
  I don't know how a huge union supporter such as yourself could have overlooked this one. It was a very significant story back in the day.

  When you drink too much Kool Aid the sugar buzz screws with your eye sight.
• KnightRyder

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;546474 wrote:Based on the current administration's policies, the U.S government. Who owns GM now? Supposedly the taxpayers, which is what, 50% of the population that actually pays taxes?

  
  i hate to break the news to you , but GM paid the government back
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;546889 wrote:Thanks for the laugh. Union leadership is all about keeping themselves employed by collecting your monthly dues and directing its membership how to vote so they - not their membership - benefit politically.
  
  The days of union "leadership" helping the membership get fair pay and better working environments are long, long gone.

  
  Union leadership is all about keeping themselves employed by collecting your monthly dues ? really. aint that odd when i was a union elected official i paid union dues just like every one else. i also worked in shop just like everyone else.and directing its membership how to vote , just let a elected official t try that. the penalty is way to stiff to even consider doing that.
• tk421

  

  KnightRyder;547072 wrote:i hate to break the news to you , but GM paid the government back

  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/gm-hot-water-ftc-truth-advertising/
  

  But a top Senate Republican has accused GM of misleading taxpayers about the loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was able to repay a $6.7 billion bailout loan only by using other bailout funds in a special escrow account.
  Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout — also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
  
  
  
  Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.
  
  
  
  "It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

  Yeah, hate to break it to you, but Government Motors didn't pay off their loans "in full". They, just like the government, used borrowed money to pay off borrowed money.
• Con_Alma

  KnightRyder;547091 wrote:... i also worked in shop just like everyone else.and directing its membership how to vote ,...

  You directed it's members how to vote?
  
  Why would you not provide them information and allow them to choose for themselves how to vote?
• cbus4life

  Center, all i meant was that, right now, i can think of numerous examples of public sector unions being utterly worthless...but i'm not going to sit here and pretend that i know about every single situation re: unions and public employees, and thus i can't sit here and say that unions should go away in all public sector situations. I don't know enough to decide whether it is that simple or not. All i know is that, while i am generally for them, my experience with them in the United States has not been positive. But, my own experience is very limited.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Yeah, hate to break it to you, but Government Motors didn't pay off their loans "in full". They, just like the government, used borrowed money to pay off borrowed money. "
  
  Agreed, that people even believe this damns another public union, the teachers.
  
  GM was a broke company, we pumped 10s of billions of dollars into a company that could have been bought for practically nothing, because of its liabilities. The U.S. is NOT going to get paid back in full by any means, we (the taxpayers) saved a company because it was deemed to big to fail. They are looking at about a $10B IPO, no way, no freaking way does the stock price get up to pay back all of the amount poured into it.
  
  It was the definition of a bailout.