Chiefs 2009 Home schedule in jeopardy ??

**YZILLA** · 03-25-2009, 06:35 PM

Labor dispute could jeopardize Truman Sportx Complex project

A contract dispute could cause a halt in construction at the Truman Sports Complex. Sources within the union tell both KMBZ and our sister station 610 Sports that the dispute involves the carpenters, ironworkers and builders. A contract is set to expire Tuesday night. If an agreement isn't reached, there could be a strike. A statement from Jackson County says that "they are confident that the parties involved in these negotiations will reach a settlement that will allow work to continue at the Jackson County Sports Complex." We have talked directly with the Chiefs and they say that reports that they are wanting to play all of their games on the road are false. Mike Smith, chairman of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, says opening day for the Royals will go on as scheduled. He says there are questions surrounding Arrowhead in the event of a work stoppage. However, Smith says any talk of the Chiefs home games being in jeopardy is "jumping the gun."

**Chiefster** · 03-28-2009, 01:06 AM

Sure hope not.

**AussieChiefsFan** · 03-28-2009, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Guru

Not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Chiefster

Sure hope not.

**Bike** · 03-28-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Hayvern

They protect nothing but themselves. 500,000 construction workers are not working right now and these greedy morons want to go on strike. Look, if safety is an issue or something like that, go for it, strike and complain, but if all they want is a pay raise, then the union should be ashamed of themselves. Get an agreement done and get back to work!

If not for the Union I would be hauling 20,000 tons of coal across Kansas at minimum wage and half the benefits I recieve now. The unions actually protect workers from greedy - profit hungry ceo's that want to ship every profit nickel they make to overseas bank accounts. I know there are inherit problems with union labor, just as there are with non-union.
Bad subject to talk about here. No more.

**Canada** · 03-28-2009, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Canada

Let them play in Canada!!! Buck Fuffalo and bring me my Chiefs!!!

Hey yeah, good idea Canada!!

Yeah, let the Chiefs play in Toronto!!

**Hayvern** · 03-28-2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Bike

If not for the Union I would be hauling 20,000 tons of coal across Kansas at minimum wage and half the benefits I recieve now. The unions actually protect workers from greedy - profit hungry ceo's that want to ship every profit nickel they make to overseas bank accounts. I know there are inherit problems with union labor, just as there are with non-union.
Bad subject to talk about here. No more.

Sorry Bike, from what I have seen from you, I have a lot of respect for you, so please do not take this personally, but you are dead wrong here.

I don't get this whole CEOs are greedy nonsense. Seriously, these are the guys who work harder than anyone else they employ. It is their butts on the lines everyday to make sure that their employees have a job. Why the hate?

CEOs pay what the market will bear, union labor drives up the market to a point where it makes it hard for CEOs to continue to do business when they have to compete on the world market. Take the automobile business, it costs GM $75 per hour in labor costs to build a car, Toyota can do the same thing for $45. Why? It isn't because the auto worker today is making $75 per hour, it is because of how long GM has been a union shop. GM has to pay all those pensions that previous greedy labor strikes have imposed on them. Toyota is too new to have these historical payments.

As for what you would be paid if you were not in the union. You would be paid what the market provides. If you are a trucker, a business where there is a lot of demand, then you would never be working for minimum wage, but you likely would not be paid what you are making now. The market for union truckers is artificially inflated by the union itself. I was a heavy equipment operator for over 9 years. I dealt with this stuff first hand on a daily basis. I was not a union operator, but there were times when I worked on projects that paid union scale. I admit, the money is nice, but it is artificial since almost every operator, including those that were in the union would have worked for half of what the union was paying them.

Since the union has a lock on all Government work, it costs people a lot more money than it should to get anything done, that is why California cannot build new roads or schools. The cost of labor to build those things are too great.

I like you Bike, but this has to be said, especially in our current economic crisis. It's like I told the union guy that was picketing my place of work in 1997. When he told me "Just think about the money you would be making if you were in the union!"

I told him, "If I were in the union right now, I would be picketing some poor dude who is just trying to put food on the table for his kids!"

**tammietailgator** · 03-28-2009, 01:52 PM

Like I said earlier... there are plenty of unemployed people in Kansas City that are more than willing to cross the picket line.

And no Canada, we are not moving the Chiefs to Toronto!!

**EdPodolackfan57** · 03-28-2009, 06:52 PM

I truly hope that this gets done whether they have union workers or non union workers. besides In this day of economic distress it would absolutely be foolish for the Union to go on strike.

**Bike** · 03-29-2009, 10:12 AM

Well we will have to disagree here. I believe the worker should get a larger part of a companys' profit. You believe the CEOs' should get it. As a Christian Conservative I constantly have to defend my values to my union brothers. You say the market will decide our salary, I say CEO's decide our salary. Corporate greed is the reason this country is reeling today. These people could care a less about you or your family. And these CEO's deserve what they can take from you? Are we becoming a 3rd world country where we are currently shipping all our labor?
Wrong subject. Wrong forum. I'm done.

**Hayvern** · 03-29-2009, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bike

Well we will have to disagree here. I believe the worker should get a larger part of a companys' profit. You believe the CEOs' should get it. As a Christian Conservative I constantly have to defend my values to my union brothers. You say the market will decide our salary, I say CEO's decide our salary. Corporate greed is the reason this country is reeling today. These people could care a less about you or your family. And these CEO's deserve what they can take from you? Are we becoming a 3rd world country where we are currently shipping all our labor?
Wrong subject. Wrong forum. I'm done.

The absolutely greatest thing about America is this:

You too can go out and start a business and be a CEO and take whatever you want from people who work for you, or you can work for someone else and complain about the scraps you think you get. It is your decision, and the world is open to you.

**rbedgood** · 03-29-2009, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bike

Unions protect American workers.
Think before you post.

Historically there is some merit there...however in more recent history unions have protected their own existence and essentially screwed the american worker and economy.

(see Airlines, Auto industry, steel workers, etc....unions may negotiate great pay, but they essentially push companies to outsource work due to the cost of the Union worker)