Posted on 01/01/2016 7:09:28 AM PST by detective
hen did unions cross the line from being workers who want to collectively negotiate with their employers to becoming gangs that threaten non-members? Or has it always been that way?
In Michigan, which has moved on from being a hard union state to one where workers have a choice about joining, a United Auto Workers chapter has put out a hit list of nonmembers it believes deserve intimidation.
Local 412, based in Warren, Mich., suggests that its members refuse to "share any tools, knowledge or support" with "any of these employees who choose not to pay their fair share."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
It started with the first union.
“”share any tools, knowledge or support” “
And right there is the basis for removing that union from every country in America for intentional sabotage.
It's always been that way. It is the nature of the beast.
Yup!
“share any tools, knowledge or support”
Playing Devil’s advocate, how is that sabotage?
Withholding knowledge, tools and support could endanger the worker as well as the product, creating unsafe work conditions or creating an accident, which will shut down the production line.
If that is the intention, that is sabotage to the employer.
Simple. Because that directly and negatively impacts the function of the company, economically and productively. It also falls under economic terrorism because they are taking a political action as their basis.
The intent, ultimately, is to circumvent the law and force the company to hire only union and return to forcing union employees to pay up...at threat of lowering produvtivity of said employees and thuscorporate income.
I disagree. That is a failing of the employer and the new employee.
Unions are an arm of the democrat party and, just like the dems, have no principles.
Is it economic terrorism when a corporation fires a 1000 Americans and hire a bunch of H1B’s or ships the jobs to a bunch of low wage Chinamen?
For the most part labor unions, especially the large, wealthy ones, have devolved into little more than extortion rackets backed by the corrupt federal government.
Politicians manipulate the laws to give the unions government backing and carte-blanche to extort money from members and employers.
Then the unions kick back part of the loot to the same politicians who protect them and give them government coverage to run their extortion scams.
The union bosses and the politicians posture for the public, pointing out what great humanitarians they are and patting themselves on the back in congratulations for the wonderful work they do.
Meanwhile, the working man, who is at the bottom of the heap, foots the biggest part of the scam with the wages he must pay the union for the right to work and earn a living.
I’d call it simple greed. If they are a company, they should be able to hire and fire at will. In a free market, the worker is not a slave and can work elsewhere.
That said, the rest of us are under no obligation to buy from them. AND as they are in America, they could not hire illegals or HiB types if the laws did not encourage it in the first place.
I’m not ENTIRELY against the idea of H1B types. The concept is sound. The PROBLEM is as with all things, it has been exploited. There is not one, nor has there EVER been, actual need for a foreign hire that an American cannot fill. If the company simply wants more profit, that’s not the intent of H1B.
“I’m not ENTIRELY against the idea of H1B types. The concept is sound. The PROBLEM is as with all things, it has been exploited.”
Kind of like Communism, it just hasn’t been done right yet?
It has always been that way. Unions are communist, and in the communist world, one must be prepared to sacrifice ALL for the Collective. That means liberty, limb, and yes, even life itself.
In the full context of my post, It doesn’t need to be done at all. That’s my point. The concept is fine. But it’s better as a mental exercize than a reality because in reality there is no need for it. And in reality it results in the current situation.
Definitely grounds for removal. It is written in my job description that I will mentor junior engineers. If I refused just ‘cause I didn’t like their hair color, what college they attended, etc. I could be dinged on my evaluation. Any problem with performance that becomes chronic and apparently un-correctable can be grounds for removal.
Put yourself in the role of employer and imagine how you would want your employees to act. Where I work, someone who engaged in the behavior described would not last very long.
Active site sabotage is a union trademark.
THUGS!! Democrat Thugs!!
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.