Posted on 03/19/2009 8:39:55 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
I googled this accident, and read quite a few articles about it, but I have failed to read even one account that Mr. Gomez had tried to get a union into the company before his accident happened. I did however read about the union goons that were yelling about it afterwards. Kind of like the anti gun people take a mass murder and use it too there advantage to get headlines.
This was one case. I am sure if I looked I could find deaths at union plants also. It was, in your words, an industrial fatality. In 1999 three UNION workers were killed by a collapsing crane (Big Blue) while working on construction of Miller Park in Milwaukee, WI. I suppose that maybe they were behind on their union dues or something, after all if they were good union workers, this never would have happened.
“It’s not a choice between safety or no labor union. Labor unions are not the only reason employers work to improve safety in the workplace. If unions were 100% responsible for workplace safety, then why aren’t workers dying off in droves in the Right to Work states.”
And, that is only one aspect of the influences on safety in the workplace. Without a union, the company faces the threat of lawsuits if safety is not up to regulation. Note that I don’t use the term “management”, the term often used as the opponent to the direct laborers—management works for the company which means the owners, workers and other stakeholders. Union officials (the “management” of the union organization) often take interest in safety conditions and I had union officials of a large auto company at a safety talk I gave some time ago. Of course, they are not the only people interested in safety, the company also cares including, especially, the worker him or herself. The worker is also the most able to influence safety being closest to the risks.
A union that fights against the removal of unsafe workers is extending the threat to that worker and coworkers. A union that drives production out of the US likely will drive the work to a facility where employees and facilities are associated with less stringent safety regulations and interests. The result is an increase in injuries but not here in the US where the workers must look for other jobs—sometimes less safe jobs or multiple jobs where the added fatigue increases safety risks. If the company must choose union approved employees or must reduce safety-related testing or screening of workers, then safety may be weakened and this shows up in data by the way. Then, there is the threat of harm from other workers or union personnel to keep workers in line or force union election (as told me by a former union organizer). There are plusses and minuses to unionization in the area of safety.
Companies face incentives to produce and to compete in a global economy where wages are one factor affecting competitive success and speed to produce is another factor. Speedy work is generally not the safest work and neither is lowest cost production. State OSHA’s have few inspectors and many places to inspect. The decades since OSHA’s founding about 1970 have witnessed a general belief that inspections are inadequate to the challenge of supporting safe workplace regulations.
I am not bashing unions or companies, only pointing out that the issue is more complex than an incident in a video and such pleas do not support good safety.
Not good enough. Federal regs say the power should have been pulled and the machine locked out before it was worked on.
That didn't happen.
And because it didn't happen a husband/father was beaten and cooked to death.
The relationship between labor and the companies (I don’t use the term “management” either) has changed over the years, from an adversarial to a cooperative relationship. While the 1930’s style of ramming heads to do things like improve safety and compensation worked then, it does not work as well now now.
Worker safety, once admittedly established by unions, is not going to go away, so in that regard, unions have pretty much outlived their mandate. But, we still keep hearing it as though unions are the only thing kleeping workers alive and healthy because it makes a good emotional scoring point. That’s why it’s perfect for liberals.
Unions appear to be strictly compensation- and political-related now, and they’ve gone heavily in the direction of the Democrats since the ‘70’s, even though the members are split close to 50/50.
Because life is much bigger than you think, and what you think is much smaller than life.
That is one of the biggest problems with unions. Incompetent workers are shielded and protected. Worthless workers are difficult to get rid of. Good workers are discouraged from high production to keep expectations low. The overall effect is a less efficient and competitive company.
Unions are a socialist weapon and decades of union strong-arming has created an atmosphere of unrealistic high wages for unskilled work. Great for the low-skilled and incompetent union workers, not so good for good union workers, certainly bad for America. There is no free lunch, the piper must be paid; ask General Motors.
Now that a world-wide economy is established whether we like it or not, companies can go elsewhere to escape union-imposed burdens and be competitive, while you union-lovers whine about multi-national corporations being the problem, take a closer look at yourselves, you caused it.
do you not believe in a secret ballot?
Go check with your dad. This statement shows you are out of your depth.
You’ve got to be kidding me. You fight like a little girl:
“Thanks for agreeing everyone hates you, and thinks I’m prettier. “
You’d be funny if I wasn’t sure you think your technique is clever.
I never said unions were better or worse on the whole, but you must admit that union slackers stay on the job a heck of a lot longer than non union slackers. And for productive workers that have to work along side the slackers, I don't see that as a good thing.
NO ONE is entitled to a job, they must first earn it, and then continue to produce in order to keep it.
A union strike is, in reality, an act of economic violence against a company and as such should only be used when true health and safety issues are the issue. To strike for increased wages, benefits, vacation time, senority issues or the reduction of productivity standards is, frankly, extortion.
Looks like they nailed you pathetic, liberal ass. It’s not the way it was in your heyday. You can’t get by pulling the heartstrings like you used to. No wonder your bunch is failing. So sweet, people are thinking.
Oh, I am sorry. I failed to see it was you. I would not have answered, knowing how hopeless you are. Please disregard any attempt I made at trying to reason with you.
There’s a guy dead because of illegal workplace practices, and all you can think of is bad jokes to save face for being on the side of the guys that killed him.
Disgusting.
You think writing mindless cliches that are sixty years out of date is laudible?
Check out the parking lot at any union hall in the country, and get a clue.
The problem with you
doctrinaire theoreticians is you don’t seem to realize you can’t sell
theoretical products.
Feminism sounds pretty reasonable too, when all you think about is doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs. But guess what happens when you’re a ditch digger paired up with a woman making the same wage you are.
My. You are impressed with yourself, aren’t you?
Do you answer other people’s mail, too?
I love the “attempt to reason with you” bit, too. Your version of “reason” is like a teenager trying to pass themselves off as foreign by affecting a cheesey accent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.