Unions

[Hayvern]

In the main topic area, I have been ranting on unions lately, and I think I should explain why I have such hatred for unions.

I worked in a number of unions in my years being on this planet. My first foray into the world of legalized extortion came when I worked on a Government contract installing public utilities. To work for the government you had to be in a union. It did not say what union it had to be, so my company chose a different union than the local chapter.

So we got picketed. I remember having a guy standing over me as I was working hooking up a natural gas line and had him screaming at me, all the time he was standing there with a lit cig and endangering my life. We called the police, but was told there was nothing they could do. So for two weeks these guys put not only MY life, but the lives of many other people in danger for their "right" to picket my workplace.

It did not stop there though. We would come in to work and find our equipment dangerously sabotaged. One morning, the lug nuts had been loosened on my work truck, had I not been diligent about inspecting the truck each morning me and my crew could have been killed.

My next round came when I worked in the public school system. They took my monthly dues, no matter if I wanted them to or not. Oh, they game me a choice to not be in the union, but they were going to take my dues anyway. Then, they took those same dues and used them to support government legislation that ultimately led to my job being taken away. There was no defense for me, I was let go unceremoniously and left without the 2 years of dues I paid for nothing.

Unions had a purpose at one point, and they could still have a purpose again, but the unyielding attitude of the people who are members of those unions need to change. The days of the union caring about the workers are over, they are some of the most powerful organizations in the United States and are certainly more powerful than the very CEOs that end up hiring their workers. Something is terribly wrong with that.

[Hayvern]

Unions are also a part of capitalism. It is the free market of supply and demand.

The laborers have a commodity that companies need, and they supply it for a price.

The days of the companies setting all the prices for their own demands are gone for those with unionized employees.

This is the part that you just don't get so we might have to agree to disagree on this.

But the union artificially drives up the price. The demand for labor is there, but the price is artificially inflated, which in turn drives up the price of goods.

You see, if I have a good that I can deliver to the market cheaper, then I should be able to do that. But with the unions, I cannot do that. If I bid on a Government contract, then the ONLY room I have is based on how much profit I am willing to take on the project. The unions set the price for labor to a certain point and the amount of time it will take is not all that different from one company to another one, so the only concession that sets me apart from the competition is how much profit I am willing to take against the other guy.

But if I can find equally qualified people to do the work at a cheaper price, and I can, then I have some room to haggle and get the work.

If the union was interested in playing on an equal field, then why do we have laws that require Government projects be paid at union scale? If the union wanted to compete with the private, capitalism sector, they would not need such protections. But since they are not interested in such competition, they have to have these laws to protect them.

[Drunker Hillbilly]

As long as they are around, they will never want to compete with the private sector.

[chief31]

This is the part that you just don't get so we might have to agree to disagree on this.

There is no part that I don't get. Evey business creates an artificial demand for their product, at some point.

Common business practice.

As for agreeing to disagree... didn't I already suggest that?

But the union artificially drives up the price. The demand for labor is there, but the price is artificially inflated, which in turn drives up the price of goods.

You see, if I have a good that I can deliver to the market cheaper, then I should be able to do that. But with the unions, I cannot do that. If I bid on a Government contract, then the ONLY room I have is based on how much profit I am willing to take on the project. The unions set the price for labor to a certain point and the amount of time it will take is not all that different from one company to another one,

What happened to all that "Laziness" talk, and the sense of superiority that came with it?

so the only concession that sets me apart from the competition is how much profit I am willing to take against the other guy.

But if I can find equally qualified people to do the work at a cheaper price, and I can, then I have some room to haggle and get the work.

That's exactly how slavery is born. There is always someone who will do it cheaper. For every employee that needs to supply for a family, there is a single young guy who doesn't need as much. And when he gets older and starts a family, you can just go get a younger guy without a family and start over. And I bet you go out of your mind over a competitor that employs illegal immigrants. Or, do you employ illegals?

If the union was interested in playing on an equal field, then why do we have laws that require Government projects be paid at union scale? If the union wanted to compete with the private, capitalism sector, they would not need such protections. But since they are not interested in such competition, they have to have these laws to protect them.

Because, with pure capitalism, labor is about who will do it for the least amount. And the single guy will do it for less than the guy raising children, every time.

Pure capitalism punishes those who choose to have a family. And anyone who seeks making more than the absolute least that is being paid.

When a government contract requires union-level pay for all the slaves, it ensures that your run of the mill exploiter will not be exploiting for this contract.

You may not like that stipulation. But I bet the guys who wind up working those jobs is awfully appreciative to finally make a decent wage.

Pure capitalism is economic anarchy and is no better then social anarchy.

In the social and economic worlds there is a reason that we have laws.

If you were rich and in need of a new heart quickly, you could probably talk some poor fool into selling you his heart.

Just because you can take advantage of somebody, doesn't mean that we should allow you to.

[N TX Dave]

I am not a union fan I have first hand knowledge that turned me against them. The first was in the summer of '66 when I to a job at KC Structural Steel as a welder for the summer between college. I was not paid scale because I was temporary employee only but I still had to pay my union dues. When I asked why they are not getting me scale wages they said unless you do you don't work here. Not right in my mind. The second happen about '70 my father in law was a union steward at United Air Lines. There was a baggage handled that had been observed opening baggage and taking things out then grabbed a set of golf clubs and they watched him take them to his car opened it up the trunk deposited all the loot close the trunk and turn around to go back to work security told him to turn his badge and leave. My F-I-L went to management and told them the union would go on strike if the did not bring the thief back which they did. His answer to me when I asked why they made the company take him back his reply was "he had paid his union dues" so they backed him.

[chief31]

I am not a union fan I have first hand knowledge that turned me against them. The first was in the summer of '66 when I to a job at KC Structural Steel as a welder for the summer between college. I was not paid scale because I was temporary employee only but I still had to pay my union dues. When I asked why they are not getting me scale wages they said unless you do you don't work here. Not right in my mind. The second happen about '70 my father in law was a union steward at United Air Lines. There was a baggage handled that had been observed opening baggage and taking things out then grabbed a set of golf clubs and they watched him take them to his car opened it up the trunk deposited all the loot close the trunk and turn around to go back to work security told him to turn his badge and leave. My F-I-L went to management and told them the union would go on strike if the did not bring the thief back which they did. His answer to me when I asked why they made the company take him back his reply was "he had paid his union dues" so they backed him.

There is a similar deal for new employees of Caterpillar Inc., where I work for The UAW.

New employees are called "supplemental employees" and are, basically, temporary employees.

Only a fool believes that this is the idea of any union.

This is just one of many ways that a company cheats the agreements that they sign.

I guarantee that that the union wants every member to make the "scale" wages. And I guarantee that none of them wants you to have to hire in as a 'temp'.

All rewards of that practice are reaped by the employer. Yet you blame the union?

That is always the case.

The unions have nothing to gain by having any laborers making small wages. Even though non-union workers work against unionization, the unions work for those same people.

As for the second case, you are definitely missing some key factor of the events.

My guess, as I have seen multiple people have the union push to get their jobs back, is that the threat of a strike was exaggerated.

I have not heard of the UAW threatening to strike for anything outside of contract negotiations since the '70s.

Did the alleged thief get through some loop-hole? Probably. Just as happens with people all over the planet, sometimes, a guy gets away with something.

[N TX Dave]

There is a similar deal for new employees of Caterpillar Inc., where I work for The UAW.

New employees are called "supplemental employees" and are, basically, temporary employees.

Only a fool believes that this is the idea of any union.

This is just one of many ways that a company cheats the agreements that they sign.

I guarantee that that the union wants every member to make the "scale" wages. And I guarantee that none of them wants you to have to hire in as a 'temp'.

All rewards of that practice are reaped by the employer. Yet you blame the union?

That is always the case.

The unions have nothing to gain by having any laborers making small wages. Even though non-union workers work against unionization, the unions work for those same people.

As for the second case, you are definitely missing some key factor of the events.

My guess, as I have seen multiple people have the union push to get their jobs back, is that the threat of a strike was exaggerated.

I have not heard of the UAW threatening to strike for anything outside of contract negotiations since the '70s.

Did the alleged thief get through some loop-hole? Probably. Just as happens with people all over the planet, sometimes, a guy gets away with something.

I understand the company was the winner the only thing I did not like is having to pay the dues and not being a member of the union. The company did not keep the my union dues did they? I know it was not much money but being an 18 year old and being told I had give money to the union and not being a member justed rubbed me the wrong way. I might say it was in Kansas which is a union state and has closed shops if it was in Missouri I would not have had to pay.

The second one there was not a loop-hole the guy thought it was all over until the union called him up and told him to come back. My father-in-law is the one who told me that he was talking to management and said there could be a work stoppage if the thief was not brought back. First of all he was a mechanic and the thief was a baggage handler which I thought were two different unions but I figured him being the shop steward he had to represent all unions I don't know I have never belonged to a union before even though I had to pay dues to one.

[Drunker Hillbilly]

No worries, they will bury themselves before it's all over.

[chief31]

I understand the company was the winner the only thing I did not like is having to pay the dues and not being a member of the union. The company did not keep the my union dues did they? I know it was not much money but being an 18 year old and being told I had give money to the union and not being a member justed rubbed me the wrong way. I might say it was in Kansas which is a union state and has closed shops if it was in Missouri I would not have had to pay.

The second one there was not a loop-hole the guy thought it was all over until the union called him up and told him to come back. My father-in-law is the one who told me that he was talking to management and said there could be a work stoppage if the thief was not brought back. First of all he was a mechanic and the thief was a baggage handler which I thought were two different unions but I figured him being the shop steward he had to represent all unions I don't know I have never belonged to a union before even though I had to pay dues to one.

The second one, I will just leave to you. Because I have little doubt that you are missing some information, and I don't trust your FIL's words as fact.

But the first case is one where you are a member of the union, but the wording of the contract allowed the company to have temp workers, and as such, those workers would not be allowed the same contractual rights as permanent workers.

But, since the contract says that the company will not employ non-union workers, they get to have you paying dues as a union member, but you don't get all of the benefits.

It is what the company wants, and, believe me, they absolutely know that the common 'temp' will blame the union for taking their dues, while not offering the benefits.

The whole issue is a war for money. On one side, you have Republicans and the richest, most powerful people on the planet, and on the other side, you have (some) Democrats, and the unions defending your interests.

And, as with any people in positions of power, in order to keep their focus off of you, you get them all riled up at other people, or even at each other.

[chief31]

No worries, they will bury themselves before it's all over.

They probably will get buried. But the guys with the shovels are those who wish they could make a real living.

Then, once they are gone, one of two things will happen...

The working class will see what life is like without the unions around and rise up in revolt (Uniting together) against terrible wages, or the government will take over all duties of protecting the working class from the predatory capitalist system, by going more and more socialist.

One way, or another, financial anarchy (capitalism) will get to the end of the game, with winners and losers.

A whole lot more losers than winners.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do the rest of you see happening when the unions are decimated? How do you see things going afterward?

Do you see the masters being kind and volunteering to pay wages higher than the lowest bidder?

[Drunker Hillbilly]

I don't even know where to begin.......

Where do you think those due's you pay go?

By your first insulting comment, I guess you if were ever in a position to own and/or operate your own business you would not do so and continue to work for someone else, union or not. Is this correct?