|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Nov 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
And did your Union Leaders poll the membership to see how many of them wanted to donate funds to which condidate? Do you have to belong to the union to keep your job?
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 1:42:44 GMT -5
And did your Union Leaders poll the membership to see how many of them wanted to donate funds to which condidate? Do you have to belong to the union to keep your job? That would be such a waste of time. I work in San Francisco. At least 99.9 percent of the union workers here would vote for Obama. There sure are a lot of sore losers to this last election. It was won by a very silent liberal majority. Yes, we all have to belong to the union (kinda, see below), but I have no complaints. However, it used to be a choice and didn't cost much. Now they take out around $2,000.00 per year out of my paycheck, if I like it or not. It seems to me they were better before, but I still have no complaints. In someways, it does seem they are mainly out for themselves, after they started to receive more money, but they still do okay for us, IMO. As long as they do as well as they have been, I won't complain about them. I think we really do NOT have to belong to the union, but they will still take the same amount of money out of our paychecks anyway. So we all belong, or very close to it. I know of no advantages of NOT belonging. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Nov 17, 2012 9:09:08 GMT -5
 $2000.00 per year in your pocket instead of theirs? And did you note what the Union leaders did for the Hostess Company workers? The makers of Twinkies and Wonder Bread - Lost them their jobs, so they did! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..... I can't reconcile how you think it is OK to charge folks to work. What would be your reaction to your supervisor charging you to come to work each day. Sounds a lot like the school bully stealing your lunch money. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 17, 2012 10:09:56 GMT -5
Hostess wanted concessions from the union, but the union refused to budge, so the company has now closed down and thrown workers out of work. So has the union really helped its members?
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 10:30:17 GMT -5
Hostess wanted concessions from the union, but the union refused to budge, so the company has now closed down and thrown workers out of work. So has the union really helped its members? It's kind of like a backjack game. If the union MEMEBRS ask for too much, they bust. The union then takes in a lot less, so it's to their advantage to keep everybody employed. It seems some here don't realize the "union" is mainly the employees. The union won't do anything that concerns us all without our vote. If the employees want the "union" to ask for more than the company can afford, they will do so, but by a vote of the employees. I've worked for both, union shops as well as non-union. The union is usually better for the workers, based on my own experience. When there's a contract, the company cannot screw you over as easily, unless the membership agrees. -Don- SSF, CA |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 10:40:07 GMT -5
$2000.00 per year in your pocket instead of theirs? Like I said, they now take the money even if you don't belong to the union. So now, the money has nothing to do with joining, unless the union busts, which I don't expect to happen any time soon. And did you note what the Union leaders did for the Hostess Company workers? The makers of Twinkies and Wonder Bread - Lost them their jobs, so they did! Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely..... Whose fault was that? Did the employees vote on it? I can't reconcile how you think it is OK to charge folks to work. What would be your reaction to your supervisor charging you to come to work each day. Sounds a lot like the school bully stealing your lunch money. Usally, the employees look for a union to join after they feel they are being screwed over by the company. And the non-union companies sometimes fear the employees will look for a union and that helps those non-union companies to stay reasonable. I suppose the union can be voted out if most of the membership wants to do such. But I have not yet seen any union membership want such. -Don- SSF, CA |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 17, 2012 10:40:45 GMT -5
Union membership has been declining for decades, which is an indication that workers don't consider unions as good representatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 10:53:43 GMT -5
Union membership has been declining for decades, which is an indication that workers don't consider unions as good representatives. It's not too surprising when jobs are harder to fine. It's too easy to "bust" these days as happened with twinkies. BTW, there goes the Dan White defense!  -Don- Rainy SSF, CA |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 17, 2012 11:15:24 GMT -5
Not quite - union membership has been declining even during boom years like the 1980's and the last decade.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 11:18:35 GMT -5
Not quite - union membership has been declining even during boom years like the 1980's and the last decade. Why do you think that is? -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 17, 2012 11:28:58 GMT -5
Because unions don't represent the interests of the workers - why else would workers reject unions?
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Nov 17, 2012 13:28:18 GMT -5
Another reason for union decline is that when their demands become excessive, big business takes the jobs overseas where there is cheaper labor and no unions. Ford is a good example. I understand they are fully automated down in Brazil now.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 17, 2012 17:26:00 GMT -5
Because unions don't represent the interests of the workers - why else would workers reject unions? The union is the workers. All issues are voted on. But sometimes the workers don't know what is best for them. -Don- |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 17, 2012 17:31:15 GMT -5
Workers don't know what's best for them, so the union leadership should decide, right?  |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Nov 18, 2012 1:32:16 GMT -5
Workers don't know what's best for them, so the union leadership should decide, right? They make their recommendations. Then we vote on it. Two years ago, I voted against their recommendations. But my vote was in the minority, but only by a little. Something like 48 vs. 52%. But just a few months ago, I favored the recommendation and voted exactly the way the union leadership said we should. And that time, I was in the majority vote by far. Something like 95% vs. 5%. So both times, the union leadership agreed with the majority of the workers, even though I didn't two years ago. Or, it could be the majority of the workers agreed with the union, which is really the same thing. -Don- Rainy SSF, CA |
|
Do you belong to a union?Yes, union 1021:
$2000.00 per year in your pocket instead of theirs?
