Trump found guilty!

[Jeff Niceswanger]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

The term ?right to work? relates to or promotes the right of a worker to be able to obtain employment without being required to join a labor union to do so. When right to work laws are in place, workers cannot be compelled to pay for any cost of union representation, even if the union is active in the workplace and represents many of the other employees.

It is a government regulation of contractual agreements between labor unions and employers to prevent the exclusion of non-union workers.

You know and have heard of not joining the union.....slashed tires, broken windshields, beat downs. Unions are not necessary for a person to have a good living and enjoy your jobs. Over 90% of the work force is non-union. In 1983, 20% were union. Why the decline.....???? Unions are a business. Their income is from dues. They are not needed, the government regulates employment.

Did you not read my post Gary? We have to represent them when they have no obligation to pay as all the other members. You think that's right? RTW is about getting people to "work for less". Period. You're a company guy. I sit across the table from guys like you. I remember the pricks and the dirty deeds done dirt cheap. You think it's not a 2-way street? You talk about twisting the word "intent" around! You guys were the BEST at it ! Amazing what butt hurt bosses will do. We just want left alone and a fair contract followed. And BTW, our local got along with the company just fine. When a company is making millions, no, Billions in profit there is no reason their employees can't make a middle-class standard of living. That's all we ask.
Before I end, you need to know how much I made in this business you seem to know all about. I had the local pay my union dues, 63 bucks a month. And we paid the vice, chief steward, and financial secretary also. All the members had to vote on the amounts. The international was sent 1/2 of our due's collections. With that money they trained our stewards, sent lawyers to arbitrations and negotiations, put together a nice newsletter that kept tabs on what the political parties was proposing and voting on that would benefit or harm us and took care of membership drives to help others wanting to unionize. The other half we kept in house to pay for our negotiators from the different departments during negotiations, paid me for putting on monthly union meetings (one for 1str shift, second and third) and paid to send our delegates to the conventions. We also had to pay for the union hall, the office supplies and such things as laptops, printers etc. The International President, the leader of the pack so to speak, could not make any more in wages than the highest paying dues members yearly wages. Sure you know what you're talking about there bub? All unions are not the same, but your adamant they are.

[SStockDart]

RTW is about letting employees keep their hard earned money and not donate to the historical thuggery of unions. Have you forgotten, I was once a union steward for the Teamsters before I was a manager a Fortune 500 company. I've lived on and seen both sides and prefer employees being able to walk up to a manager and have a conversation without consulting the union first. Who issued your pay check and probably paid for most of what you have? The company. You have them to thank not a greedy union that takes your money. Have a nice day. No need for unions anymore.

[Jeff Niceswanger]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

RTW is about letting employees keep their hard earned money and not donate to the historical thuggery of unions. Have you forgotten, I was once a union steward for the Teamsters before I was a manager a Fortune 500 company. I've lived on and seen both sides and prefer employees being able to walk up to a manager and have a conversation without consulting the union first. Who issued your pay check and probably paid for most of what you have? The company. You have them to thank not a greedy union that takes your money. Have a nice day. No need for unions anymore.

So.... the answer is to eliminate them. Thats your take on it Gary? Because that is what we're talking about. Trump is trying to wipe them off the surface. Not how much you personally like or dislike them. Your stewardship was back in the early, early days and I lived in that timeframe also. Unions are not remotely the same as back in the 60-70's. Somehow you think since you were a steward that all unions are just like the one you were in back in the day. Wrong. People that are currently, (not back in the hippy days), members of unions WANT them. And want left alone. You say Unions are not needed. Just go ask the members if they want to go without representation. Alot of people hate our noisy dragstrips too! Maybe we should just get rid of all those damn noisy places!

[Chevy55]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

RTW is about letting employees keep their hard earned money and not donate to the historical thuggery of unions. Have you forgotten, I was once a union steward for the Teamsters before I was a manager a Fortune 500 company. I've lived on and seen both sides and prefer employees being able to walk up to a manager and have a conversation without consulting the union first. Who issued your pay check and probably paid for most of what you have? The company. You have them to thank not a greedy union that takes your money. Have a nice day. No need for unions anymore.

The States with Prevailing wage laws and also allow Project Labor Agreements construction workers earn 2 to 3 times as much when including fringe. Contracts that are being signed this year are in the range of $14 to $16 hr increase over 4 years,.
Union trade school is free and you earn while you learn, your comment that Unions aren't needed today absolutely makes no sense!

[SStockDart]

Try this on.

1. A young man in high school decides what he wants to do in life.
2. He goes to college, trade school, or OJT to be trained in his chosen field.
3. He applies for a job. Is explained the details of wages, schedule, and benefits.
4. He accepts the job. If he doesn't like it, he quits.
End of story...no union

[SStockDart]

Quick note about "state prevailing wage". Who pays for that? (Hint...taxpayers)

[Jeff Niceswanger]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

Try this on.

1. A young man in high school decides what he wants to do in life.
2. He goes to college, trade school, or OJT to be trained in his chosen field.
3. He applies for a job. Is explained the details of wages, schedule, and benefits.
4. He accepts the job. If he doesn't like it, he quits.
End of story...no union

Ok, lets try this,
1) Its 1980. A young man goes to trade school and upon graduation hires in at his new dream job. Its nonunion. He is told about this "great retirement plan he will enjoy after X number of years. He works there 25 years and to his dismay a notice goes up on the bulletin board that due to financial changes the company retirement plan and retirement plan health insurance will be modified. Nervousness sets in as he knows he still has another 10 years to work before his planned retirement. He patiently awaits his "packet that comes in the mail. He and his wife are shocked to find out his health coverage after retirement has been cancelled, and the "system' they use to calculate his pension has been modified to severally drop his monthly pension pay. All of his and his wife's lifetime dreams will have to be modified, many of them scrapped.
VERSES
2) Its 1980. I go to trade school and upon graduation hire in at my new dream job. It's a union shop. I am handed a contract book after my 3-month probation period. In that contract is my Pension and Health coverage. One year during negotiations the company announces they are getting out of the Pension business and are refusing to comply to what was agreed upon during my hiring. We go on STRIKE. After a month of standing out in the cold, we win our demands and in 2017 I retire with all my agreed upon benefits. You know who that happened to ??.... ME!. Well, at least the #2 version. See the difference? And you say Unions are for the birds. This bird likes security, and unions do their best to give it to their members.

[Jeff Niceswanger]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

Quick note about "state prevailing wage". Who pays for that? (Hint...taxpayers)

This taxpayer does not have any problem paying workers a middle-class standard of living. None at all. I do however have issues with millions upon millions that are given to huge Oil companies and such

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by SStockDart

Quick note about "state prevailing wage". Who pays for that? (Hint...taxpayers)

Because the prevailing wage law was implemented by the state, public works projects that are controlled by the federal government do not need to comply with its terms. However, only projects that are 100% funded by the federal government and under their management are exempt.

[jmcarter]

Everyone has their own perspective on unions but I can share mine based on managing a team of 200 machinist members of the IAM. Negotiating contracts and the language for distribution of overtime and such was never a huge problem. Hourly rate was always negotiated fairly easily unless the fully burdened rate would render our products too costly to compete. Larger issues were implementing productivity and/or quality improvements that the union felt could chip away at the total number of paying members. The poor performers were shielded by the union because again, the number of paying members were of the utmost importance to the union, not the productivity of the shop. A huge amount of my time was devoted to the discussion and arbitration of fairly petty issues. After two years in that role I was relieved to return to managing salaried employees, not to mention cutting my workweek from 70 to 50 hours