(03-14-2014 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  but heh..... We got OSHA......... we don't need no stinkin' UNIONS!! They are outdated. I mean who needs them in today's society.

You probably don't get to use OSHA much in a classroom Mach. Trust me OSHA has stricter guidelines for Steel Workers than the local union. The US Army Corp of Engineers have stricter guidelines than OSHA.

And Mach.. OSHA or any guideline is great if followed, but the problem is the work is being performed by humans and humans do err. No union, guideline, or whatever can stop a person from making a mistake and getting injured. Sometimes injuries happen.

Who needs Unions today?

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/20...the-claim/


Civil rights groups filed a petition today with the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asserting that the U.S. government has failed to protect poultry and meatpacking workers from permanently disabling and life altering work-related injuries and other abuses.

“The United States has not acted with due diligence nor has it taken proper steps to prevent abuses of meatpacking and poultry processing workers’ human rights, and is inasmuch violating the rights of workers in the poultry industry through its negligence.”

The petition was filed by the Midwest Coalition for Human Rights, Nebraska Appleseed and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The organizations have examined and written about the harsh working conditions in U.S. poultry and meatpacking plants, including their reports “The Speed Kills You,” and “Unsafe at These Speeds.” Workers are forced to keep up with the “punishing speed of processing lines,” and expected to make as many as 20,000 cuts per shift. The petition notes:

Unions.... SO OUTDATED!

The meatpacking industry is one of the largest employers in the United States, employing over 500,000 workers in 2009. This industry is also among the most dangerous. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6.9 workers per 100 full-time workers were injured in meatpacking facilities, compared to 3.6 workers per 100 full-time workers injured in private industry in 2009.

- See more at: http://blog.unmc.edu/publichealth/2011/1...rdKPG.dpuf

This is now and forever will be the answer to you yahoots that think Unions are outdated. Look at what happens when they are decimated. I'll be like the Lorax and you will eventually drive me off and but I will foretell the doom and destruction that you guys are bringing forth onto us.


May God have mercy on your greedy souls.

(03-14-2014 01:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  companies relocate because of the "race to the bottom" concept. fox news is quick to point that the millennials are an "entitled" generation but in this day & age every city has to offer a major tax incentive to get new business because if they don't give it.....someone else will.

So you admit that lower taxes brings jobs to an area.

and i am not talking about the "$100 dollar bills" stereotypes here. i am talking about a bill that is driven mostly by corporate interests and made to spin like this is a workers rights issue.

This is a worker's rights issue. It gives them some control over their agents. Corporations can't force the employees to do anything with their unions.

the way i see it groups using member dues for political contributions is an issue that is not limited strictly to unions. people who belong to any interest group in general have to deal with this issue. so i do not see any reason why unions are being singled out here other than it is a bill with the real intent of crippling unions. can you imagine if these types of rules applied to the NRA? because it would be real interesting to see the dem/repub ratio there.......

Are you saying two wrongs make a right? And people can drop out of the NRA if they disagree with them, but who is going to quit a job because of something a union did?

while joining a union may not be as voluntary as joining the NRA how about this example. The average college student belongs to a number of different interest groups. these are not groups you join willingly but groups that receive money based off tuition fees that get automatically charged as a result of your enrollment, or given by the student board or school administration to support these groups. and yes these groups do spend large portions of that money for political purposes without a say from me at all for it. here is a list of how many of these groups exist just for college students.
http://www.finaid.org/questions/advocacy.phtml

Totally different scenario. But keep trying.

on top of that the whole mentality for this bill is flawed. they say "it's all about workers rights not crippling unions"......ok then. how come every aspect of the bill is designed to hurt unions and not a single part gives any reenforcement to them? This may come as a shock to you guys but workers are also threatened into leaving/not joining unions as well......

See, this is how you think. The bill is about giving the employees more control over their masters, not crippling unions. If the employees want to cripple a union, then so be it, there's nothing a corporation can do about it. Whose side are you on, the unions or the employees? And this may come as a shock to you, but it's illegal to threaten an employee into leaving/not joining a union. But you knew that.

and the rationale of this is flawed: hate to break it to you but people don't vote based on their union beliefs. there are a number of other political reasons to sway someone else's vote. just because someone votes republican does not mean they disagree with who the union is giving money to. the unions primary job is to look out for what is in the best interest of the union. why should they be forced to give to politicians who do very little to help unions?


What? You mean to say that if a guy is voting for a republican and the union is supporting a liberal then there's no disagreement with who the union is giving money to? Seriously? The only thing you stated correctly here is that the union is only looking out for the union - members be damned.

and the best talking point from the proponents of this bill:
In February 2012, the group, which supports a bill in Congress that would require unions to be recertified every three years, ran a Super Bowl advertisement which said that "Only ten percent of people in unions today actually voted to join the union." The Fact Checker column in the Washington Post awarded the claim three Pinocchios, saying "In the end, this is a nonsense fact."

Ok, then pick your percentage - 20%? 30%? Whatever it is, there are still a lot of people in a union who didn't vote for it. If the union is performing well then I'm certain the employees will recertify them again, and again, and again. Why are you worried about this?

when you are part of any group that requires you to give money they can take that money and do what they please as long as it obeys the rules of the groups mission statement/manifest. from AAA to a fraternity it is a fact of life. so when it seems to me that only unions are being outed on this issue is does raise a very big concern that this is a bill motivated by corporate interests and not so much the concerns for the rights of workers.

You still haven't explained what the motivation is for these corporate interests you mention. And let me say this again, this has nothing to do with corporations as they have no say in how the employees treat their unions, it's about giving the workers more power over the people who represent them in a fashion many dictators would. I'm sure you're aware that if you openly disagree with a union they can fine you, but if you disagree with the company you work for they don't. Oh, and the part that's in bold type, this is about giving workers more rights, or can't you read?

(03-14-2014 02:39 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  but heh..... We got OSHA......... we don't need no stinkin' UNIONS!! They are outdated. I mean who needs them in today's society.

You probably don't get to use OSHA much in a classroom Mach. Trust me OSHA has stricter guidelines for Steel Workers than the local union. The US Army Corp of Engineers have stricter guidelines than OSHA.

Quite a bit stricter actually. It used to drive construction contracts nuts when they did something OSHA approved which I had to tell them to redo..

(03-14-2014 02:50 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is now and forever will be the answer to you yahoots that think Unions are outdated. Look at what happens when they are decimated. I'll be like the Lorax and you will eventually drive me off and but I will foretell the doom and destruction that you guys are bringing forth onto us.


May God have mercy on your greedy souls.

6.9 injuries/100 fulltime workers x 500000 industry workers= 34500 injuries/year.

Compared to 1.2M abortions/year.

Yeah, you're Mr. Compassionate.

You're just another left-leaning egotist who wants to control the whole world. It's always amusing when you criticize me, that I act like a fool, when your posts are nothing more than adolescent rants. You hang around 14 year olds for a reason mach: you obviously couldn't make it among adults.

So tell me about your days as a meat packer Mach?

I know I can't, never done the work.

(03-14-2014 02:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Unions.... SO OUTDATED!

The meatpacking industry is one of the largest employers in the United States, employing over 500,000 workers in 2009. This industry is also among the most dangerous. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6.9 workers per 100 full-time workers were injured in meatpacking facilities, compared to 3.6 workers per 100 full-time workers injured in private industry in 2009.

- See more at: http://blog.unmc.edu/publichealth/2011/1...rdKPG.dpuf

This article doesn't support your claim. they mentioned unions once in the whole article? In fact the article seems to tout the fact that business's are the one that are putting in money to keep the employees safe.

I'm not saying unions haven't been helpful in this industry. Unions are a good tool. what i don't believe in is Closed shop unions and money being funneled into the pockets of fat cat union bosses and politicians.

from my understanding That is what this bill is attempting to stop. IT is stopping the unions from using the money in a way the members don't want. It also proposes that if the members of the union don't like the way things are being run they can put the union up to a vote and elect new leadership or elect not to have a union.

(03-14-2014 02:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Unions.... SO OUTDATED!

The meatpacking industry is one of the largest employers in the United States, employing over 500,000 workers in 2009. This industry is also among the most dangerous. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 6.9 workers per 100 full-time workers were injured in meatpacking facilities, compared to 3.6 workers per 100 full-time workers injured in private industry in 2009.

- See more at: http://blog.unmc.edu/publichealth/2011/1...rdKPG.dpuf

I think Mach the problem is you are trying to lump confy state and federal workers in with Meat packers...

Pretty much everyone here has said "unions have their place" but even FDR did not think unions of state employees was a good idea..

(03-14-2014 02:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 02:39 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 02:38 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  but heh..... We got OSHA......... we don't need no stinkin' UNIONS!! They are outdated. I mean who needs them in today's society.

You probably don't get to use OSHA much in a classroom Mach. Trust me OSHA has stricter guidelines for Steel Workers than the local union. The US Army Corp of Engineers have stricter guidelines than OSHA.

Quite a bit stricter actually. It used to drive construction contracts nuts when they did something OSHA approved which I had to tell them to redo..

Good ol' EM 385.

Still driving costs. If you don't have a good ENR rating and get a job, they watch you like a hawk.

(03-13-2014 11:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Not by the corporations. Did you catch the part that only ten percent of current employees actually voted for a union or the number of union households that are for this bill? But if the unions provide a vital and important service then the unions have nothing to worry about, correct?

like i said......

this is a type of bill that gives your typical corporate fat cat an erection. this bill is as much about corporate interests as it is about "employee rights"

So it's a win-win situation for the employees and fat cats. Cool.

as usual you are extremely naive

Naive? No. Does this have a potential upside for employers? Possibly, but not guaranteed. Does this have an upside for employees? Absolutely. Does this have a downside for unions? Possibly, but not guaranteed.

I have to ask, do you have any idea how difficult a union can make it to decertify even if the vote is 100% to do so?

i DARE John to give me ONE example of how this has an upside for employers. There's ABSOLUTELY _ZERO_ in this bill that has anything to do with Employers.

In fact, it says the Union can STILL spend the money on political campaigns, _IF THE EMPLOYEES_ approve their money going to political campaigns.

So John, what's the upside for Employers? I really am looking forward to hearing the argument for this one. Or is the best you're going to do is just say "It's for the 1%ers?"

(03-15-2014 10:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  like i said......

this is a type of bill that gives your typical corporate fat cat an erection. this bill is as much about corporate interests as it is about "employee rights"

So it's a win-win situation for the employees and fat cats. Cool.

as usual you are extremely naive

Naive? No. Does this have a potential upside for employers? Possibly, but not guaranteed. Does this have an upside for employees? Absolutely. Does this have a downside for unions? Possibly, but not guaranteed.

I have to ask, do you have any idea how difficult a union can make it to decertify even if the vote is 100% to do so?

i DARE John to give me ONE example of how this has an upside for employers. There's ABSOLUTELY _ZERO_ in this bill that has anything to do with Employers.

In fact, it says the Union can STILL spend the money on political campaigns, _IF THE EMPLOYEES_ approve their money going to political campaigns.

So John, what's the upside for Employers? I really am looking forward to hearing the argument for this one. Or is the best you're going to do is just say "It's for the 1%ers?"

it weakens unions ==> anytime that happens it's always a victory for the employers.

not my fault you are too stupid to realize the obvious

John, it empowers employees. Whose side are you own, employees or union bosses?

(03-15-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  John, it empowers employees. Whose side are you own, employees or union bosses?

employees

hence the reason I oppose this bill.

(03-15-2014 11:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  it weakens unions ==> anytime that happens it's always a victory for the employers.

not my fault you are too stupid to realize the obvious

The only thing this bill does is give employees in unions more control over their union. That means NOTHING for the employer. In fact, the employer is not even involved in the purpose of this bill.

LET ME BE CLEAR (I'm gonna do this in Obamaspeak for you):
If you are an employee in a union and you like your union, you can keep your union, PERIOD. But...if you don't, then you can boot them or change how they spend your money and represent you.

(03-15-2014 11:16 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  John, it empowers employees. Whose side are you own, employees or union bosses?

employees

hence the reason I oppose this bill.

The bill _empowers_ employees.
You claim to be on the side of employees
SO you oppose the bill.


That's REAL Logic there...

(03-15-2014 11:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 10:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So it's a win-win situation for the employees and fat cats. Cool.

as usual you are extremely naive

Naive? No. Does this have a potential upside for employers? Possibly, but not guaranteed. Does this have an upside for employees? Absolutely. Does this have a downside for unions? Possibly, but not guaranteed.

I have to ask, do you have any idea how difficult a union can make it to decertify even if the vote is 100% to do so?

i DARE John to give me ONE example of how this has an upside for employers. There's ABSOLUTELY _ZERO_ in this bill that has anything to do with Employers.

In fact, it says the Union can STILL spend the money on political campaigns, _IF THE EMPLOYEES_ approve their money going to political campaigns.

So John, what's the upside for Employers? I really am looking forward to hearing the argument for this one. Or is the best you're going to do is just say "It's for the 1%ers?"

it weakens unions ==> anytime that happens it's always a victory for the employers.

not my fault you are too stupid to realize the obvious

Again, John... WHERE does this weaken unions? They're just told they can't use money on POLITICAL campaigns. What does this do to weaken unions on a JOB site? Nothing.

Come up with something other than "democratic talking points" john, and MAYBE, just maybe you'll actually be taken seriously around here.

The left wants to limit freely given contributions to Conservatives but want no restrictions on coerced funds for leftists.