Is anyone still stupid enough to believe that the Repubs are for worker's rights?

[willard 0]

Not all are like that, fortunately. I had issues with the Teamsters, you had problems where you worked. But to be fair, I have friends who are bricklayers and laborers. They make good money, but they bust their asses for it. I know, I used to help them on weekends when I needed some extra cash. Their unions also help them stay working by putting them on jobs. Not all unions are leaches.

[willard 0]

Quote

I think that there should be a law that says union leadership should get the same strike pay as their represented workers, when they are on strike.

I agree. Also, striking workers, since they left work of their own free will, should not be eligible for unemployment compensation. (I'm not sure if they are while on strike) I don't say that to punish them, but it would give a bit more incentive to settle on a contract.

[sundevil777 102]

In 1995 I toured the Cadillac factory in Hamtramck, MI, right after I put my 2 weeks in at the Honda factory putting together cars (they make new engineers get some perspective by doing a stint on the production line). I was absolutely amazed at the slow pace of work required of them. They also were smoking while installing interior parts, even after the seats were installed. The tour guide was trying to convince the group of how hard they work.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

unions are great, just ask gm.

The unions didn't kill GM. GM existed, in fact prospered, for decades with unions

Japan killed GM. Outsourcing killed GM. Shitty designs killed GM. Shitty marketing killed GM. Chasing the wrong types of vehicles and building what they -thought- the public wanted rather than what the public -actually- wanted killed GM.

Japan outsmarted GM. GM (and the others of the big three at the time) lobbied to have foreign automakers off-shore their own manufacturing in an effort to stemm their competitive edge. Instead, Honda and Toyota built their plants in areas starving for development, employed non-union employees that make better wages and benefits than their unionized counterparts.

The rest of your statement is true to a point, but the unions got involved in that crap too. Unions dictating points of manufacturing or retraining due to a factory re-tool for a new car line is BS. They've stepped in every bucket GM had. The union pensions are eating away at the company. The company pays more non-employees full wages than it does on the active pay-roll. That is not good business, no matter how you roll it out.

All that money they made during the 90s was on trucks and SUVs. While the Japanese evolved their product line, GM remained stagnant.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[willard 0]

The Japanese also switched to an operating model that allows them to make relatively small runs of many models, thereby capturing not only the large market areas but also the niche markets. The "Big Three" have stayed with the status quo, only recently having followed the lead of the foreign owned manufacturers. Methods of maunfacturing also have had an influence. While U.S. and European manufacturers are still relying on human inspections to find defects in parts before they are installed, the Japanese, led by Toyota, have pefected manufacturing techniques that produce a superior part that needs no or very little human inspection. Studies have shown that even the best human inspectors are only 99% efficient in catching flawed parts.
Fact is, the Americans have lagged behind Japan auto companies in almost every area. I hope someday they will take the initiative to surge ahead.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

While U.S. and European manufacturers are still relying on human inspections to find defects in parts before they are installed, the Japanese, led by Toyota, have pefected manufacturing techniques that produce a superior part that needs no or very little human inspection. Studies have shown that even the best human inspectors are only 99% efficient in catching flawed parts.
Fact is, the Americans have lagged behind Japan auto companies in almost every area. I hope someday they will take the initiative to surge ahead.

And again, that is in part, due to the unions. I can guarantee that every company from Johnson Controls to Siemens E&A have showed execs at GM, Ford and Chrysler some truly amazing automated fabrication and inspection technologies. The big three wanted to bite, but the unions wouldn't allow the phase out of the human element.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[sundevil777 102]

There was one factory in Detroit that was going to modernize. The unions demanded that they install new equipment in the factory instead of workers from the equip mfg. GM decided to close the plant.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

While U.S. and European manufacturers are still relying on human inspections to find defects in parts before they are installed, the Japanese, led by Toyota, have pefected manufacturing techniques that produce a superior part that needs no or very little human inspection. Studies have shown that even the best human inspectors are only 99% efficient in catching flawed parts.
Fact is, the Americans have lagged behind Japan auto companies in almost every area. I hope someday they will take the initiative to surge ahead.

And again, that is in part, due to the unions. I can guarantee that every company from Johnson Controls to Siemens E&A have showed execs at GM, Ford and Chrysler some truly amazing automated fabrication and inspection technologies. The big three wanted to bite, but the unions wouldn't allow the phase out of the human element.

That hasn't been my experience. I was a leader of getting Visteon (was Ford, still unionized) as a supplier for Instrument Panels on the new Acura MDX. They were more automated than the traditional Japanese transplant companies.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Royd 0]

Quote

My experience with unions has been bad.
The one I worked for back in the day 8-9 years ago were a sack of lazy shits making good money for not working much. Within the first day I was told to slow down, and shown where to hide from the cameras so to avoid working. I have never been so over paid for the amount work I did, and you can’t do your thing because they will fire you.
It was a waist.

I like the idea of fair pay but for fair work.

I've never been in a union, but I've been around quite a few former union men and have heard enough stories to know that they are filled with slackers and scammers. Whether they were that way going in or became that way later, who knows.

[Lucky... 0]

I see no one has addressd the issue I have about free market concepts, just generally basked unions for harboring lazy people.

The term, "right to work state" is generally misinterpreted, it means that you cannot be compelled to join a union in order to work at a company. I think most states are RTW states, so any args against unions are moot in RTW states?

Now, how is it that the gov can overregulate unions to the point of handcuffing them? Aren't we a capitalist nation? If so, quit nulifying people's right to organize. Truth is, kids, we are not a free nation, free market, etc. They want us to buy into that BS, but it certainly is not true.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

A bill to allow workers to form unions by signing up, instead of voting, advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday as the Bush administration threatened to veto it.


All it does is allows for workers to publicly submit cards and be counted for more open elections, somethng this admin deas not like - open elections. It still requires over 50% to pass.

The Democratic-controlled House Education and Labor Committee voted along party lines, 26-19, to approve the bill, which would require employers to recognize unions after a majority of workers have signed pro-union cards or a petition.

Right, and to keep voting secret is a way to skew the vote and to keep the work force individual.

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

That's a joke, the company intimidates union organizers or pro-union workers, not the other workers intimidating workers. This is pathetic.

"Our administration rejects any attempt to short-circuit the rights of workers," Cheney told the business-friendly National Association of Manufacturers. "We will defend their right to vote yes or no by secret ballot, and their right to fair bargaining."

This is teh theme of the thread, is anyone stupid enough to believe this? This admin wants to protect the worker by keeping the process secret?

"Let the employees decide if they want an election or if a majority wants sign-up with no veto by the boss," committee Chairman George Miller (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat, said as the panel began drafting the legislation.

Right, let it happen w/o delays and bureaucracy, that's what the dems want, the repubs want to bog i down and keep it secret. Is anyone stupid enough ti believe that Chenney has the worker's rights at heart?

Backers of the bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, argue that the election process is inherently unfair because union organizers can be denied access to the workplace, while bosses can require workers to attend anti-union meetings.

It's currently real fair, huh?

They also cite studies showing that employers often fire workers illegally with little, if any, penalty in the months leading up to elections. The bill's opponents counter with charges of worker intimidation in organizing campaigns, which they say the bill would make worse.

If a fellow wrorker leans on you, just say fuck off, but if management leans on you, they can fire you for no reason, which is what happened to me. Are tehy trying to push on us that fellow workers can cause eneough stress on people who reject unionization? Couldn't that worker go to managemen and be protected, over-protected? Of course, there is no real fear of worler intimidation.

The bill also would for the first time make labor law violators subject to civil penalties and require that unions and companies unable to reach agreement on a first contract submit to binding arbitration.

Still giving the gov, thru the courts, the right to settle things early.

The bill is expected to reach the House floor next month where approval is likely, since more than half of the chamber's 435 members, including a handful of minority Republicans, have co-sponsored it. A similar measure is expected to be introduced in the Democratic-controlled Senate soon, but it's fate there is less certain.

A similar bill died in the last Congress.


Is anyone going to try to tell us that Repubs are doing this out of care for teh worker? Be real.



AGAIN, HOW IS IT THAT WE HAVE A FREE MARKET WHEN BUSH ORDERED NW AIRLINES FLIGHT ATTENDANTS BACK TO WORK OR HAVE THE CONTRACT BE TERMINATED?

BEFORE 911, BUSH DID TEH SAEM WITH 2 AIRLINE'S MECH UNIONS, A FED JUDGE REVIEWED IT ON APPEAL AND SAID HE DOESN'T SEE HOW THEY HAVE ANY POWERS TO DO SUCH THINGS BUT WILL BACK TEH PRES ANYWAY.

i'M JUST SAYING TO QUIT THE HORSESHIT RHETORIC ABOUT WHAT A GREAT, FREE COUNTRY THIS IS WHEN IT IS NOT.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Has anyone ever believed that Republicans are for worker's rights?

FallRate

No, but they pretend to so they can justify the BS and lack of medical coverage.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Got nothing to do with workers rights

Just follow the money...........

Uh, what?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.

Those states that are closed shop and have unions in them enjoy far better benefits than their counterparts and if a person wants to, they can suck up and become management.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union.

Oh please, if you were at a workplace, a union drive came up and you decided not to vote for it, fellow workers gave you shit, all you would have to do is to go to management and they would likely fire the union driver.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

After reading the article, I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, it is still too easy for employers to impede union organizing; so I don't have a problem with some sort of legislation to help remedy that. On the other hand, the Repubs have a point that the proposed bill removes the element of secret ballot, and that will inevitably lead to some workers not "voting" their true conscience, due to well-founded fears of intimidation and ostracization. Secret ballots exist in civilization for a good reason: to assure that a choice is truly a choice, and not mere acquiescence.

Well written, but as I just wrote, the fear would be reverse, all a union non-supporter would have to do is to go to management and the BS would end. The same can't be said teh other way.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My father had to break union lines back in 1972 after he was kept from working for over 8 months and there were seven children to feed and a house to pay for.

The strikers parted the line the next day for fear of another physical confrontation as they had they had the day before.

OK, so 1 event 35 years ago means????????

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yep it is great to tell a guy how great a union is when his kids have no food, and he is told he can't work.

And then to find out there is no pension fund left after Jimmy and the mob stole it.

WHAT? Post examples of this. Can you say, Enron? All the recent airline pension robbers. Please.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've been on both sides of the union fence. I was a member of the Teamsters, but the only thing they ever did for me was take money from my paycheck. Oh, and threatened to kill my brother when they went on strike and he kept on hauling (he is an independent trucker) so he could feed his kids.

Who made the threats? Did he call the cops?

As for taking your money, what would you have had with no union? Just go work for a non-union shop and find out, so the gain is unnoticed in that you can't see what they do unless you bust the union.

Look at NW Airlines, they made $35/hr+, ow that they have busted teh union, they make a little more that half that with lesser benefits. So unions do nothing huh?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.

You are right, no one has ever been intimated by unions and no one will ever be intimated by unions if voting is made public. This issue is not about being for or against worker's rights, it is about being against public voting.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Exactly right. A worker has more to fear from pro-union people if he votes against the union (or resfuses to sign a petition) than he ever would from an employer if he voted in favor of a union.

Oh please, if you were at a workplace, a union drive came up and you decided not to vote for it, fellow workers gave you shit, all you would have to do is to go to management and they would likely fire the union driver.

From that statement it is quite obvious that you have never worked in a union shop and let the union leaders know you would rather the shop be non-union. Unions are, historically speaking, not very tolerant of dissenters.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.

Those states that are closed shop and have unions in them enjoy far better benefits than their counterparts and if a person wants to, they can suck up and become management.

22 states have RTW laws. That is less than half, not even close to most. Also, railway and airline industries are exempt from these laws. That means even in a RTW state, one can be forced to join a union to work in those industries.

[NCclimber 0]

The union shops in RTW states are pretty intolerant of employees who don't join. The union bosses aren't the problem. It's the co-workers (union members) that can/will make your work environment miserable.

[warpedskydiver 0]

From that statement it is quite obvious that you have never worked in a union shop and let the union leaders know you would rather the shop be non-union. Unions are, historically speaking, not very tolerant of dissenters.

[willard 0]

Quote

The union shops in RTW states are pretty intolerant of employees who don't join. The union bosses aren't the problem. It's the co-workers (union members) that can/will make your work environment miserable.

I can agree with that. The only thing one has to fear losing by pissing off their employer is their job.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Vice President Dick Cheney declared the administration's opposition to the measure earlier on Wednesday, saying secret ballots are needed to prevent possible worker intimidation.

Not everyone wants to be in a union. Sounds like they are trying to protect worker's rights.

Mant/mosts staes are right to work, meaning you cannot be compelled to join teh union in order to work there.

You are right, no one has ever been intimated by unions and no one will ever be intimated by unions if voting is made public. This issue is not about being for or against worker's rights, it is about being against public voting.

No, the issue is about keeping voting secret. Companies can;t continue to exploit labor if all cards are on teh tables.

Why not respond to what I wrote about employees feeling pressured to vote for a union who go to management to report such intimidation? The company would absolutley love this individual and make him/her the posterchild for such an issue, discipline anyone who supposedly intimidated him/her. It just would not happen.

Out on the picket lines is a bit different, but that's after the establishment of a union, this issue is not addressing post-union establishment.

To say that the establishment of a union has nothing to do with worlkes rights is, well, predictable.