Union Teachers ditch to attend anti-RTW rally

[noise]

Yep, it never happens. You guys are fucking hilarious. Really.

All good.

What's hilarious is you missing the point entirely. Nobody said it doesn't happen. What we're saying is that it's irrelevant. It's anecdotal, it has no bearing on the discussion, and it says nothing about relevant facts.

[noise]

It's the equivalent of saying, "I can't be racist, I have a black friend!"

[Islandman]

Got it. Carry on. I forgot how free of anectodal BS this site is.

[noise]

Got it. Carry on. I forgot how free of anectodal BS this site is.

Oh, I don't mind it. I'm just saying, it's important to remember it's just anecdotal BS.

[gnome]

Go easy Islandman, take a breath. Walk away from the noid.

Just because you experienced your life doesn't make you an expert in it, doesn't make you able to comment on your own reality, the one that happened before your eyes. Oh no, you are just an anecdote. A footnote.

Jeeze, the blind arrogance of some people.

[noise]

Go easy Islandman, take a breath. Walk away from the noid.

Just because you experienced your life doesn't make you an expert in it, doesn't make you able to comment on your own reality, the one that happened before your eyes. Oh no, you are just an anecdote. A footnote.

Jeeze, the blind arrogance of some people.

You've just advocated for any kind of bigotry that exists in this world. Congratulations.

[oladub]

The libertarian view on RTW is that it is an infringement on the freedom of the company to create whatever kind of contract it wants to, or sees fit to. Closed shop contracts only happen with the company's consent. The company should be free to choose this route if it "wants" to.

But the libertarian view goes much farther and would not grant unions any legal status at all. They would just be a free association of people who want to speak as one with the employer. The employer is not obligated to listen to them, but will if they think it is necessary to hire the workers they want. Unfortunately, U. S. law has gone way beyond this in granting unions special status and forcing employers to deal with them, collect their dues, etc. Now some governments like Michigan think the balance has gone too far, so they add another layer of regulation like RTW. But balancing earlier restrictions on freedom with new ones is not the way to enhance freedom and choice. A better way is to reduce the role of government in employer-employee contracts. But this is too much to ask of our two parties.

As someone who is more libertarian than most on this board, I somewhat disagree. Libertarians come in different stripes and with different perspectives just as authoritarians, the opposite of libertarians, do.

I've been a union member most of my working life. Here is what I think unions do. Rich people hire their own lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to promote their personal interests. People without so much money can buy into a group plan know as a 'union' to provide themselves lawyers, financial advocates, and political lobbying. I think they have every right to do so if rich people do. When going to work for a company or government agency, one knows if it is union. Those who do not want to work with a union should apply elsewhere. Private schools, for instance, are often not union. Similarly, businesses and governments can agree to a union contract. It is a contract presumably not signed under duress. Government should support the sanctity of legal contracts.

Union employees have the option of raising hell if their union betrays them by accepting bribes or if they would prefer their union to support different issues and candidates. However, that is an internal union matter that should be decided by union members. If the laborers union supports illegal aliens and Presidents who are ruining the middle class, for instance, then laborers shouldn't be surprised if they are displaced by non-union laborers willing to work for less than half their wages or their spending power and savings decline. Again, if displeased with the policies of their union, union members have the choice of changing union policies or finding a non-union job.

However, if a union acts like a parasite that devours its host, it is not the business of government to bail the company out because by signing a contract with the union it took that chance. If GM did not see the problem its legacy costs would cause, that is bad management. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for bad corporate management decisions.

[Det_ard]

My source was watching these lazy assholes sitting in their maintenance office screwing around all day, never fixing our AC, never helping fix lights, etc. in out area.

One day I'm moving a PC from one cubible to another, and I havd to go talk to two of my supervisors because these same assholes wrote up a grievance to the union. Apparently they had time to do that.

This was at EDS in the basement of the old GM building in 1999, not that I need to cite anything.

Another example was when I worked a summer job at the Marathon plant cutting grass and the pipefitters, making a shitload more than I did, would hide in the grass dykes surrounding the large tanks sleeping all day. And yes, I saw them because I was cutting the damn grass. This was in the summer of 1989.

I have had a long work history, but hopefully that should suffice.

Again, I'm not saying that EVERY union worker is lazy, but if you belive that it's an urban myth that some of them are, and are protected by unions from being fired on the spot, you need to put the crack pipe down.

Edit.: And if you don't believe me, I'm not going to cry about it. It happened, I saw it. I have no reason to make shit up.

I had similar experiences with the UAW folks. They were supposed to carry our computers to the support people. They would take days and we had a business to run so we'd wait until they left at 3:30 and then do it. Similar stories about sleeping except the preferred spot was about 8' up in a huge box that held the molded carpets for cars [[at a final assembly plant).

I didn't have negative views of the unions until I actually worked with them. That was all it took though. The stuff they did would blow your mind, if you didn't experience it firsthand. I guess a lot of the union slappys either directly benefit financially from them or they just haven't seen the ultra-bad side. When I hear the talk about union history, the sit-down strikes and other ancient history, I bring up the more recent history of union abuses that is actually more relevant to what unions do today.

[noise]

I know a number of non-union employees. They are worthless. Lazy and stupid. Therefore, all non-union employees are worthless, lazy and stupid.

[Islandman]

Thanks gnome.

noise, I know you probably missed where I clearly indicated that some, not all union employees fall into the lazy category. It's OK if you want to continue to post idiotic comments. It's a free country.

[noise]

Thanks gnome.

noise, I know you probably missed where I clearly indicated that some, not all union employees fall into the lazy category. It's OK if you want to continue to post idiotic comments. It's a free country.

No, I only missed where you explained how your comment was even remotely relevant to the issue or intellectually responsible as a potential "point".

You just broke your glass house.

[Wesley Mouch]

I had similar experiences with the UAW folks. They were supposed to carry our computers to the support people. They would take days and we had a business to run so we'd wait until they left at 3:30 and then do it. Similar stories about sleeping except the preferred spot was about 8' up in a huge box that held the molded carpets for cars [[at a final assembly plant).

I didn't have negative views of the unions until I actually worked with them. That was all it took though. The stuff they did would blow your mind, if you didn't experience it firsthand. I guess a lot of the union slappys either directly benefit financially from them or they just haven't seen the ultra-bad side. When I hear the talk about union history, the sit-down strikes and other ancient history, I bring up the more recent history of union abuses that is actually more relevant to what unions do today.

There's a real need for reform in Unions. I accept that they have been and are overall a force for good. Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve them.

My biggest issue with Unions has nothing to do with wages. Its all about conditions. Obsession with work rules hurts Michigan and Detroit productivity -- and harms us all, one slow cut at a time. Until the economy moves elsewhere. That's why RTW is valuable. It gives a tool to members to hold their Union accountable. The Union doesn't like this, preferring to be its own evil -- but made worst by the fact that they're immune to failure. Making Unions earn their dues will make a huge difference.

And this leads me to an important comment. There's lots of talk about how this will destroy the world, or help increase employment, or reduce wages, or.... and so on. The truth is that there's very little history here. No one knows what's going to happen when an industrial, unionized state goes RTW. Its WAY to early to have even a hint of failure or success in Indiana. It'll probably be too early even by 2014. If we're wise, we'll let this experiment runs its course for a while. Let the Unions focus on improving themselves, and let the public see the results. I don't know if it'll be good or bad. I believe it'll be good for Detroit and Michigan.

And if the Unions do a good job. They'll get 99% of members to join and nothing will change -- except that the Union will pay more attention to their members. I've met few Union members that didn't think their Union could use a kick in the ass.

[Novine]

Let's see, as the rate of union participation has dropped in this country, personal income for the middle and working class have stalled. One could say it doesn't prove anything but it seems like someone needs to explain why income growth has exploded for those at the top and left everyone else in the dust.

[Wesley Mouch]

Let's see, as the rate of union participation has dropped in this country, personal income for the middle and working class have stalled. One could say it doesn't prove anything but it seems like someone needs to explain why income growth has exploded for those at the top and left everyone else in the dust.

There's certainly a problem with the 1%. Has next to nothing to do with Union membership rates.

Why has Union membership declined? All it takes is 50% +1 of workers in a shop to vote in favor. The NLRB works hard to ensure that the election is fair. Its a secret ballot. No one knows how you vote. So while there may be pressure from management, only you know how you voted. The NLRB will hold your hand if you want to unionize. But somehow, more and more people don't. There's something up.

I suggest Unions look at their own failings -- and stop spending so much time blaming others. Demand excellence from workers. Support each other. Let go of the idea that their wealth trickles down and has created the middle class. The democratic version of trickle-down economics. Give the Union more money. It'll raise your standard of living, you poor scab.

Remember, to increase union membership, all you have to do is vote in favor of a union at your workplace.

Apparently, workers around the US realize this isn't what they want.

[oladub]

Let's see, as the rate of union participation has dropped in this country, personal income for the middle and working class have stalled. One could say it doesn't prove anything but it seems like someone needs to explain why income growth has exploded for those at the top and left everyone else in the dust.

The drop in union participation is a symptom rather than a cause. Importing stuff is more profitable to the Wall Street crowd than having things domestically made with union workers.

[leapfrog]

I know a number of non-union employees. They are worthless. Lazy and stupid. Therefore, all non-union employees are worthless, lazy and stupid.

Exactly...

[Wesley Mouch]

The drop in union participation is a symptom rather than a cause. Importing stuff is more profitable to the Wall Street crowd than having things domestically made with union workers.

Not true. The drop is both # and %. Fewer union workers. Smaller percentage of total workers -- except for gov't.

[prokopowicz]

As someone who is more libertarian than most on this board, I somewhat disagree. Libertarians come in different stripes and with different perspectives just as authoritarians, the opposite of libertarians, do.

I've been a union member most of my working life. Here is what I think unions do. Rich people hire their own lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists to promote their personal interests. People without so much money can buy into a group plan know as a 'union' to provide themselves lawyers, financial advocates, and political lobbying. I think they have every right to do so if rich people do. When going to work for a company or government agency, one knows if it is union. Those who do not want to work with a union should apply elsewhere. Private schools, for instance, are often not union. Similarly, businesses and governments can agree to a union contract. It is a contract presumably not signed under duress. Government should support the sanctity of legal contracts.

Union employees have the option of raising hell if their union betrays them by accepting bribes or if they would prefer their union to support different issues and candidates. However, that is an internal union matter that should be decided by union members. If the laborers union supports illegal aliens and Presidents who are ruining the middle class, for instance, then laborers shouldn't be surprised if they are displaced by non-union laborers willing to work for less than half their wages or their spending power and savings decline. Again, if displeased with the policies of their union, union members have the choice of changing union policies or finding a non-union job.

However, if a union acts like a parasite that devours its host, it is not the business of government to bail the company out because by signing a contract with the union it took that chance. If GM did not see the problem its legacy costs would cause, that is bad management. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for bad corporate management decisions.

I think this is 100% correct, and I don't see how it disagrees with what I wrote. The govt should enforce any contract agreed to between union and employer. But the govt should not force the employer to deal with a union or any other particular group. The union should have no legal status other than any private club, until they enter into a contract.