TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › New Rules for Unionized Workers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Rules for Unionized Workers

post #1 of 18
1/31/09 at 11:52am
Thread Starter 
Anyone keeping up with the "changes" we got this week? Again, reversing Executive Orders, we have:

Part 1: Reversal to require union shops to remove signage notifying workers that they are allowed to leave the union.

Not such a big deal really, but I'm sure the unions are loving it.

Part 2: require service contractors at federal buildings to offer jobs to qualified current employees when contracts change.

Define qualified. Does that mean if a federal contractor was let go for poor performance under the contract, the workers might still be staying?

Part 3: require federal vendors with more than $100,000 in contracts to post workers’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

I thought all businesses had to post worker rights information? I know our HR has fits if one of our signs falls off the high tech bulletin board.

Part 4: prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses that were intended to influence workers’ decisions to form unions or engage in collective bargaining.

So can union reps be reimbursed for these same expenses? Seems like we're giving the union a little leg up, allowing them to woo workers with free lunches, etc.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...diZWFkMDQ5ZTY=

Any thoughts????

I think it's partial payback for the millions in union dollars received by the Democrats last election cycle. I hope it's enough, and they don't keep persuing the Employee Free Choice Act.
Reply
post #2 of 18
2/1/09 at 4:19pm
Change you can believe in. Those secret ballots will be next, stay tuned.
Reply
post #3 of 18
2/1/09 at 5:41pm
When someone supports a candidate, they have every reason to be expect to be rewarded for it. For opponents to expect otherwise is unreasonable.

One of the great things about our system is that no one party has a lock on power, so both sides' ideas get to see the light of day, over time. Believe it or not, that's not a bad thing.
Reply
post #4 of 18
2/3/09 at 6:36am
Thread Starter 
Interesting article on public-sector unionized jobs and their benefits. Whilst I agree that police officers and firefighters risk their lives doing their jobs, I'm not sure I'd agree that would equate to these HUGE kinds of pensions.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0216/078.html

One guy in NJ is making $80,000 PLUS benefits and retirement a year as a teacher, which the state average income is $44,000?

And I definitely don't agree with them taking retirement AND keeping their job while drawing both monies. Or the "sargeant for a day" rule so they can draw retirement based on higher numbers.

Playing the system is bankrupting our local and state governments.
Reply
post #5 of 18
2/7/09 at 3:12pm
Thread Starter 
And another EO repealed, this should finish off the construction industry.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/constructi...6022009-1.html

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today denounced an Executive Order signed by President Obama that repeals Executive Order 13202, that prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal funding from requiring contractors to sign union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of performing work on federal and federally funded construction projects.


"Today's decision to repeal Executive Order 13202 opens the door to waste and discrimination in federal and federally funded construction contracts," said ABC President and CEO Kirk Pickerel. "This action removes the safeguards that prohibited discrimination based upon union affiliation in the awarding of federal contracts.


"Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces," said Pickerel. "Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.


"Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union," added Pickerel. "All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government."

Great. More change.
Reply
post #6 of 18
2/14/09 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Those secret ballots will be next, stay tuned.
Those secret ballots aren't as effective as they're made out to be. I was in a position once where there was a vote to unionize. The ballot was secret, but everybody knew how everybody else voted. When you have those meetings, you learn who's for and who's against. So when the vote was 5 to 1 in favor of the union, and I was the only one who spoke out against it, it was pretty obvious whose vote the lone "no" vote was.

Actually, I wouldn't have been opposed to it if they'd picked the right union for representation. The job was as a flight instructor at a community college and they wanted the Teamsters, of all people, to represent them! And a closed shop, too yet. Aaaaack!! Why not a teacher's union? Or a public employees' union? Teamsters? Flight instructors are educators.

Oh, well, I was outa there with a better job within the year anyway.
Reply
post #7 of 18
2/14/09 at 3:35pm
Thread Starter 
I think the key with the getting rid of the secret ballot is that it would allow the same pressure from union thugs (yes I said thugs) that is implied will come from employers. The secret ballot protects workers from ALL pressure to join the union.
Reply
post #8 of 18
2/14/09 at 3:38pm
Oh, there was still pressure, I can tell you that for sure. Perhaps it's peer pressure instead of "union thugs" but it's still pressure.
Reply
post #9 of 18
2/14/09 at 7:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
And another EO repealed, this should finish off the construction industry.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/constructi...6022009-1.html

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) today denounced an Executive Order signed by President Obama that repeals Executive Order 13202, that prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal funding from requiring contractors to sign union-only project labor agreements (PLAs) as a condition of performing work on federal and federally funded construction projects.


"Today's decision to repeal Executive Order 13202 opens the door to waste and discrimination in federal and federally funded construction contracts," said ABC President and CEO Kirk Pickerel. "This action removes the safeguards that prohibited discrimination based upon union affiliation in the awarding of federal contracts.


"Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are designed to be awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces," said Pickerel. "Absent the economic benefits of competitive bidding, union-only PLAs are known to increase construction costs between 10 percent and 20 percent and discriminate against minorities, women and qualified construction workers who have traditionally been excluded from union membership.


"Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union," added Pickerel. "All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government."

Great. More change.
This is bad, really bad, but so not surprising considering Obama's Chicago connections.
So anyone not in the Union is just screwed I guess. Somewhere Jimmy Hoffa is jumping for joy.
Reply
post #10 of 18
2/15/09 at 5:14am
Not to make this into a union/non-union debate, but to a large extent, a union is punishment for bad management. Some companies have no trouble with unions. A good example is Little Debbie (McKee Bakeries), and another was Watkins Truck Lines. Both paid their employees better than the prevailing wage in their industry. Both were clearly sensitive to the needs of the employees. Both had excellent benefits. Neither had any trouble with union organizers. That's still true of Little Debbie, especially their drivers. They make a great income, are home every weekend, and have great benefits. Watkins was bought out by FedEx (it's now FedEx National LTL). After 2 years of being jerked around by arrogant and insensitive absentee management, they are in real danger of being unionized by the Teamsters.

The secret ballot mentioned above might not have been all that secret in that particular case, but in a location where you have 200 people voting, it's much more effective.
Reply
post #11 of 18
2/15/09 at 7:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Not to make this into a union/non-union debate, but to a large extent, a union is punishment for bad management. .
You know, I don't think I've ever thought of it that way, and I think you've got a point there. Though in my case, I think the management was very good. The organizers just wanted a union shop and the majority didn't care.

I wonder if there's a more effective way of dealing with bad management?
Reply
post #12 of 18
2/15/09 at 7:59am
Yeah. Fire them, when the workers are quitting over their incompetence.
Reply
post #13 of 18
2/15/09 at 8:01am
Who's going to fire them when they're the owner or the CEO?
Reply
post #14 of 18
2/15/09 at 8:06am
No one, when they're the owner. But bad management that can't keep employees will go out of business. One of the bad things about a union is that it makes it almost impossible to fire a bad employee, or for an employee that is unhappy to quit, so the natural order of things is stopped.

Typical trucking companies have something like a 150% turnover. A number of those companies are now on the ropes; Swift is a good example. Union companies, many of which have proven to be incredibly badly managed, only have a turnover rate of 2 or 3%. The union members stay on, hanging on for that pension (which often is not there when they actually retire).
Reply
post #15 of 18
2/15/09 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
....so the natural order of things is stopped.....
Yes, but the "natural order of things" is different to managers and to workers. If bad unions throw it out of whack on the labor side, then bad and exploitative management throws it out of whack on the other side. I think the best companies are those where the employees own a part or all of the company, and have a say in running the company. Then the "natural order of things" is working in the same direction for both groups. If labor and management are working together there's no need for a union.
Reply
post #16 of 18
2/15/09 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Yes, but the "natural order of things" is different to managers and to workers. If bad unions throw it out of whack on the labor side, then bad and exploitative management throws it out of whack on the other side. I think the best companies are those where the employees own a part or all of the company, and have a say in running the company. Then the "natural order of things" is working in the same direction for both groups. If labor and management are working together there's no need for a union.
I agree with this. Our union (I should say our local) is just as bad as management.
Reply
post #17 of 18
2/23/09 at 9:51pm
Hmmm, perhaps a union could have been an advocate for these poor souls:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...NEWS/902080344

Can anything be more shameful than this?

[quote]
Since the late 1970s, Henry's Turkey Service has been shipping mentally retarded men from Texas to Iowa to work in the West Liberty plant. Henry's has acted as the workers' employer, landlord and caregiver — paying the men a reduced wage for their work at the plant and then deducting from their pay the cost of room, board and care. Payroll records indicate the men are left with as little as $65 per month in salary.

"My God, this is an embarrassment to the state of Iowa," said Sylvia Piper of Iowa Protection and Advocacy, a federally funded group that oversees services for the disabled. "This should not be happening in our state."

State officials say the 21 men who were at the bunkhouse Saturday have worked for Henry's for at least 20 years. Keith Brown, 57, has lived there since 1979. His sister, Sherri Brown, said her brother has $80 in the bank after working 30 years for Henry's.
Reply
post #18 of 18
2/24/09 at 8:26am
And what was Henry planning to do with them when they were too old to work any more? Throw them in the refuse truck along with all the other discarded turkey parts for hauling away to the rendering plant?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › New Rules for Unionized Workers