WASH: Taft-Hartley Act. (ORDERED)

TBO ^ | 10/8/02

[Billy_bob_bob]

Please re-read my posting. As I understand it, the union has no objection to the new technology. The union strongly objects to the idea that new jobs created by this technology are intended by management to be filled using non-union labor.

If management would agree to hire only union people for these new jobs, then the union will agree to a new contract and the strike/lockout/mess ends.

[Mo1]

Might I offer one thought? The historical fact is that these dockworkers FOUGHT for their union, they had actual battles with strikebreakers and thugs where real people died.

Might I offer a thought .. The problem today with Unions and the Unions of yester year is they lost track of what they were fighting for and got too political

My beef is not with Union Workers, They are just hard working folks like you or I and wanting to bring home a paycheck

My beef is with the Union BOSSES who wouldn't think twice of bringing this country down to her knees ..which may explain why these Union BOSSES always back Democrats

As for those CEO's I don't give a hoot how much they make, but if they ripp off investers and break the law .. I want to see a perp walk

[steveegg]

And what is wrong with NEW jobs being non-union jobs?

[rockinonritalin]

Thanks for clarifying. Its funny how both the union and mgmt rep said nothing about this last night on TV. Union rep said merely that they oppose the introduction of technology and that mgmt was not negotiating in good faith. Mgmt rep seemed to be trying to throw money at union (proposed agreement to increase average salary 15%+ for 90 days while other negotiations continued).

[Green]

And what is wrong with NEW jobs being non-union jobs?

I'm going to guess that if the "New" technology job replaces an existing "manual" job then the end result is one-less union job.

[Paulus Invictus]

Union policies and high wages and bennies have also worked to drive US companies abroad, not just government policies.

If a company like the big one I worked for could get their products made in MEXICO for half or less than the US labor costs and remain competitive, they would have been foolish not to opt for the lower labor costs. The stockholders would have rebelled had they failed to remain competitive.

If the world's largest corporation, Wal-Mart, insists on buying products from everywhere but the US, why is that related only to goverment policies? Oh, I know! It has to do with trade policies--NAFTA and MFN Chinese trade policies, right? Not entirely. Wal-Mart can "buy American" if they chose to do it. They had the easy choice between a big American company's and a subsidized Japanese company's products. They chose the Nips. Remember, they later insisted they always try to buy the American line of products "when possible," but nowadays they go for low labor costs every time. Show me if I'm wrong.

[steveegg]

Lessee; the union decides that they want to slow things down by 60%, but they still want to get 100% of the pay WITH NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST IT? What's wrong with this picture?

[Eala]

>Surprisingly enough...Feinstein supports this and has publicly said so.
Can't have a strike or a lockout keeping her hubby from making money.

Not to mention how much harder it is to raise taxes in a down economy.

[rintense]

They will only screw themselves by crying. Losing $80 billion a DAY in revenue will register with the American people. I heard that they make an average of $114,000!!! Tell that to the other union members around the country and see how they like that!

[rockinonritalin]

No doubt.

[steveegg]

What is wrong with that? IMHO, that's a win-win situation (damn the unions).

[Sender]

What exactly do these "dock workers" do for $120K a year? This sounds like a dream job. Where do I sign up? I'm tired of struggling along helping to save lives for half that. I'll load them apples and Barbie dolls, sir!

[MrB]

intended by management to be filled using non-union labor

That would be a tragedy for competitive workers to come in and actually do the work they're paid to do (at the value of that work) or get fired. It would set a bad example and all that. It might show the efficiencies of the free market of labor and the deficiencies of the monopoly of unions.

[Green]

I heard that they make an average of $114,000!!! Tell that to the other union members around the country and see how they like that!

I saw the same average quoted in a newspaper article. That is quite an average annual salary. I seriously doubt that is the average for union workers nationwide and I know it is no where near the average for the union workers that I know. In fact, it is about more than 2.5 times the average.

[rockinonritalin]

Union policies and high wages and bennies have also worked to drive US companies abroad, not just government policies.

Last night, a mgmt negotiator said that the union receives approx $40k in company provided benefits over and above their >$100k salary, including a zero deductible, zero co-pay health plan and a very generous pension.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I don't think it's "glorifiying" murder to point out simple facts. I suggest you look up the Ludlow massacre before you conclude that management has clean hands on this issue. The battles between managment and labor were often quite vicious. Thugs come in all sizes and shapes and forms, some wear cheap clothes and bash you with sticks, some wear expensive suits and rob you blind with papers and legal tricks.

Considering that the entire issue at stake here is that old jobs are becoming obsolete due to technology, and new jobs are becoming possible due to technology. The union has NO objection to this. The union STRONGLY objects to the notion that these new jobs are to be non-union.

This really doesn't strike me as being all that unreasonable of a demand by the union.

[steveegg]

More likely, these other unions will adopt the dockworkers' methods (ones that would make a Teamster blush) in order to "catch up".

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Again, greedy unions are cutting their own throats.

The auto industry and many manufacturing concerns have lost jobs to cheaper markets overseas.

If this political slowdown on the west coast has the desired effect and results in a double dip recession, within a decade, these greedy monkeys will be replaced by non-union immigrants.

[flamefront]

Hey! No one is going back to work without a new contract - the unions are mumbling about abiding by the "safety agreement." Tha means they are going to shuffle around and cause slowdowns like before the lockout began.

This is no solution.

The fight goes on.

[steveegg]

Considering that the entire issue at stake here is that old jobs are becoming obsolete due to technology, and new jobs are becoming possible due to technology. The union has NO objection to this. The union STRONGLY objects to the notion that these new jobs are to be non-union.

This really doesn't strike me as being all that unreasonable of a demand by the union.

So you're justifying the union thugs slowing things down by 60%, knowing that (a) they'll be paid 100% of their salary and (b) the dock owners can't do ANYTHING about it?