Skip to comments.Unionize or Die
Posted on 03/19/2009 8:39:55 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
click here to read article
Yeah, because your friend 0bama is president, and ACORN and the Unions are taking over.
Why do anti-American pro-union types bother to be members on a conservative website, because being pro-union is DEFINITELY not a conservative thing. Anything but!
ABSOLUTELY! Anyone who opposes the union anywhere near a union facility is in grave danger! Union organization activities are the most deadly industry in the world.
And I can almost guarantee that this unfortunate employee was NOT following OSHA recommendations while performing his duties.
My husband is an upper-level manager in a union company and he not only has the pressure of the union but the threat of fines from OSHA when there's a serious accident.
This legislation would take the choice of format away from management and give it to the workers.
So you are suggesting that America should turn to a socialist philosophy - “it’s for the worker”?
Well I guess that's a start!
I don't see how a person can ignore a real industrial fatality for an imaginary "shakedown," but hey, if we all had good sense, who would make the fries?
You stated up thread when I asserted Unions need this legislation to survive that iwas wrong?
First am I wrong about them needing it?
The unions have too much history of being willing to use physical intimidation tactics to brush it off that easily.
So is welfare: deal with it.
Let's face it, there are sh*tty companies out there. No body is fighting that. But my question to you was, do you have stats available that union shops are safer than non union shops?
The majority of accidents that happen at both union and non union workplaces are due to the employees disregard of the rules. Here is one difference. If my husband, the safety director, finds an employee willfully disregarding the safety regulations during his checking, he will write up that employee. Depending on the severity of the complaint an employee will either receive more training, be reprimanded, or in extreme cases that employee can be fired.
What happens at a union shop? A grievance is filed, and eventually the employee may be slapped on the wrist.
I am not necessarily anti - union, so don't take this the wrong way, but I am definitely anti - union intimidation, and the lack of a secret ballot scares me to death!
So is welfare: deal with it.
Well, that's a great comparison, because both unions and welfare are for lecherous scum.
Deal with it? LOL, should we deal with other forms of terrorism, like islamic terrorism?
I'm glad you at least agree with me that unions are anti-American, and as bad as welfare. Bith need to be greatly reigned in.
Thanks for supporting enemies of the American way, btw. Carry on.
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.
“Its 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 arent 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.
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
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.
.....While I see my non-union counterparts lose benefits, pay, retirement, and get terminated without notification. I’m not taking sides, there are pros and cons to both systems, I’m just stating my experience.....
Those are exactly the reasons that unions have forced jobs out of the country. Companies unable to control the associated costs noted are doomed.
......But poor management also plays a role.....
That is the big lie, the profound union rationalization. The existence of a union makes management unable to manage effectively and completely.
Your union fights to lower the standard for ditch digging, forces management to hire/promote more women and your ditch digging company loses contracts to less expensive foriegn-owned businesses that hire immigrant labor?
Now if it's a flame war you're looking for I'm always up for that ... provided you're alot more interesting than you've demonstrated so far.
I refuse to argue with somebody who only uses emotional arguments. It should come as no surprise you don’t want to argue on logic. I don’t get the thing about mail, either.
You fail to realize the unions are merely hired help. They should have no voice in the management or decisions.
If they don’t like or don’t agree they should hit the road.
The owners are the only source of decisions on management
The “mail thing” is you answering a post written to somebody else.
As for your “refusal” ... it’s not my fault you cannot tell the difference between an emotional argument, and an argument that stirs emotions.
There’s a father/husband that’s dead now, and that death was not only preventable, but SHOULD have been prevented by adherence to OSHA standards that were not enforced. And you want to haughtily dismiss those facts as an “emotional argument?”
Only if you’re a sociopath.
If labor had evolved even a little bit during the last century they might still have a purpose in the modern global workplace. Unions could have become the gaurentor of a safe, efficient and productive workforce...the cream of workers! But that's not where they went. They could have taken upon their respected organisations the burden of providing quality benefits to their membership, thus relieving the costs to businesses with the forsight to use union labor. But that wasn't in the plan, either. Union bosses did not want to provide a quality service or a reliable product. They wanted to be bosses! They wanted to direct and dictate to the very businesses their membership sold their labors to. They wanted, in short, that which they did not own and had not earned! They inadvertantly caused much of the automation and robotic development of the last century and for that, I supose, some congratulations are in order. But The AFL/CIO, SEIU etc. are definately not on the side of the workers. They are, today, on the side of bigger government and mostly of themselves!
I don't know what one-man play you think you're the star of, but you might want to come back to reality when the dialog doesn't follow your script. I asked you nothing. What's more, your little screed here, lacking in anything approaching an actual detail or fact, is demagoguery BY DEFINITION!
Your ability to ignore the facts of the article (i.e. one very dead family man) to heroically pontificate out of your rather shallow imagination for "truth, justice, and the American way" as conceived by people who think of the aforementioned dead family man as a fungible commodity at best, and a regulatory headache at worst, is indeed worthy of the banana republic this country is becoming.
That, my proto-commie friend, is a question! You assumed your union rhetoric would be accepted without challenge here and you were wrong. As to the death mentioned in the article... You're the one who assumes that "there but for unions goeth us all"! I worked in a union shop for over 30 years and GUESS WHAT!? Accidents happened there all the time. Probably as much if not more than anywhere else. The only difference was that someone causing an accident was not immediately fired for his stupidity. You see the union protected the stupid!
By the way...why are you here?
No, my functionally illiterate friend: it's a rhetorical question. And even for arguments sake, if we pretended you aren't desperately trying to figure out how to avoid looking like an idiot, and it was a genuine interrogative, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER IT!
You assumed your union rhetoric would be accepted without challenge here and you were wrong.
What kind of two-bit, cliched, melodramatic TV dialog were you raised on?
Thinking that anyone could advocate for unions on FReeRepubic, and expect not to be challenged has GOT to be one of the three most asinine statements I've ever seen written here.
As to the death mentioned in the article... You're the one who assumes that "there but for unions goeth us all"
You need to go to a website called google.com and type the word "strawman" into the little box that shows up in the middle of the screen. I know you're unfamiliar with the term, but everybody else out there that has more than a G.E.D. knows it's something you act like the other guy said, because you can't beat what he really said. So it's real obvious what you're trying to do, even if what you're arguing makes about as much sense as those bozos who tried to convince everyone second-hand smoke was actually MORE dangerous than primary smoke.
I mean really, how much sense does it take to figure out management is going to take fewer regulatory risks with someone looking over their shoulder than not?
By the way...why are you here?
What? You never heard of a social conservative?
If you want to continue responding with ad hominum (and frankly ignorant) barbs go ahead. But your self-charaterization as a social conservative needs correction. You left the "ist" off of social.
That make the rest of your post nothing but a screed.
I'm sorry I didn't respond to you after you disparaging comment.
I would like to give you my first hand knowledge of Trade Unionism. Back in the mid Seventies when your favorite liberal President Jimmy Carter was attempting to destroy our nation, I worked for a very small manufacturing company in rural Georgia that had recently been purchased by a very large corporation. The buyout apparently drew the Union organizers like flies.
The first secret meeting was called at a common location, I believe it was a local Union hall. The man in charge was a New Jersey thug that makes Tony Saprano seem like Poppin' Fresh - "The Pillsbury Doughboy!" His face could have stopped the Saturn V in mid-boost. I would not be surprised that he had first hand knowledge of Jimmy Hoffa's resting place. He asked me some really pointed questions in front of my coworkers just to watch me squirm. In retrospect, I'm sure he had me pegged as the Company snitch! Of course he was right, and I told the president of the company who the ringleaders were the next day.
The sad and ugly truth was that all of the line bosses were in favor of the Union and it was clearly pointless for the company to do anything to fight it. I was very disappointed in my gullible dear friends and neighbors that were lead down the garden path by this subhuman trog. I soon enlisted in the Air Force while most of my coworkers waited for their pink slips. When the Union announced the craft functions and grades my job was only a step above menial labor, assuredly calculated as retribution for my lack of support. I left under the delayed enlistment program as the assembly lines began to shutdown. The company did not have the financial resources to pay for Union wages and benifits so soon after a corporate buyout. The plant closed a year or two later and never made it back to one-fifth of the production rate that it consistently reached before the Union ran it out of business.
The next first hand knowledge that I have was the experience of my sister-in-law's husband. He was a loyal Union man and the son of a loyal Union man that had worked up through the ranks into management and retired comfortably. When the strike talk began he was right there at the Union Hall every night to support his brother's fraternal cause. When word went around that one of the craft-members was thinking of crossing the line, he and some buddies went to make it clear the man should consider his actions carefully. They sent a rifle shot through the man's living room window. Of course they were caught, the Union settled on a new contract without going out at all. The Company demanded the Union provide a scapegoat for its actions and my s-i-l's husband faced a felony conviction and no job. Even though their loyal Union man did the Union's dirty work he was hung out to dry.
So much for Unions protecting workers from the company! While these are anecdotal observations, I have been listening to simular stories for the past forty plus years of the ways Unions harm our society. It is the cruelest vile evil joke that a Union cares for anything more than the Union. The craftsman be damned and the devil take the hindmost! To me it is like a boy that has been beaten by his stepfather. The courts come in and rescue the boy. He is then placed in a foster home where the couple treats foster-care like a business, where they have ten kids at a hundred dollars a head and they still beat the kids even if they try to complain about it. It might have been a good idea at one time until the law of unintended consequences reared it's ugly head.
I'll take my chances with the company, all criminal Unions should be PATCO'ed simply for the fact that they exist! (delivered in my best Charlton Heston on the beach voice) DT - DTOTH!
Sorry sport...unless you’ve got something to offer that beats “dead,” you’re just a kappo.
That's a little cryptic for my understanding.
The very bottom line is that Trade Unions share the same rallying cry as Communism; "Workers of the world, unite!"
Even before Trade Unionism was legally sanctioned by "Progressive Republican" crusaders in our nation, it was actively working toward the destruction of our Capitalist way of life.
Soon after Trade Unionism was legally protected by governmental fiat, democrat minded thugs joined in the vast protection racket with threats, bribes, intimidation, racketeering, misappropriation of Union monies and many other criminal activities.
How many Union workers will never intheir whole working lives advance on the job because they just are not in the Union Steward's little personality clique?! You see a grand benevolent brotherhood but how many brothers have been maimed or murdered for going against the Union bosses!?
You are clearly so enmeshed in that communistic lifestyle that you will never acknowledge the tremendous harm the greedy Trade Unions have done to our American Industry as manifest so completely in the destruction of the Detroit Auto industry. You will never acknowledge the decades long flight of American Companies to other countries where factories are not forced by a Union to pay workers to sit idle for hours a day to inflate the overtime budget or pay a Union worker twenty five dollars an hour just to sweep a floor.
So, it turns out you are assuredly the cruel kappo striving to keep your victimized Union Brothers in your Trade Union Gulag until it falls into the pits of.....
Well, until you bring US all to an ignominious end.
bridges still fall down in states the have heavy union membership(IE:MN)