Wal-Mart, Target, Alaska, and force unionism (Valdez: health insurance, budget, wages)

[elgusano]

Originally Posted by Magoon

Sure, if you want your trusted boss to make all the decisions for you. Where I worked, if we hadn't have had a Union, we *all* would have had to work through our lunch, stay 45 minutes past our contractual time several days a week, AND, depend on our 'leaders' to tell us what kind of benefits and raise we got.

So, you were a slave and had no rights to go elsewhere?

It's their business, owned by "them", with bosses that answer to them.

Henry Ford almost closed his factory when they unionized. He treated his people very, very well, but they wanted to extort just a bit more.

Where I work, they voted in the union, and they got less than they had without the union. But, they all pay their dues happily, because if not for the union, they "would be better off". (I took the Beck exemption, and my dues go to charity, not to the bloodsucking union leeches, but I shouldn't have to jump through hoops in order to exercise my freedom of religion or my freedom of association.)

But, that's not my complaint. Everyone should have the right to throw their money down the toilet, if they so choose. My problem is with forced unionism in Alaska.

I think it's a shame that we have to turn to federal right-to-work laws in order to simply exercise our freedom of association, but Alaska legislation abridges those rights through the ability for a simple majority to force people into unions, against the will of the company, with whom the employees have a legitimate contractual agreement.

By most polls, about 47% of people in forced union situations don't want to be in unions. Union membership is way, way down, and if people got to exercise their freedoms, it would be down much, much more.

Here in Alaska, we supposedly love freedom. But, in this one area, we are abysmal.

[Arcticthaw]

Did you choose not to exercise the same rights or are you a slave also?

The state has specific rules regarding meal breaks.

In Henry Fords day they also had bathroom checkers. This person verified that you actually did #2 before you could flush. Making sure you are not wasting company time. Would you like to go back to those days?

Do you recieve overtime if you work more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours a week, unless your on a 4-10 schedule. If so then thank the labor movement.

Like any other vote all it takes is 50% plus 1 to win or loose depending on your view point. The last time I experienced a job trying to organize, the FEDs, National Labor Relations Board came in not the State of Alaska. I believer this is federal jurisdiction.

Seems 53% of the people in a "forced" union situation do wish to be reperesented by a union. There is power in unity. Everyone standing up saying with one voice. Keeps the owners honest with regards to pay, work rules, benefits.

If you prefer right to work states, try Florida, Texas and a few others... Can you compete with the hispanic work force? Will your pay be equal to what it is here if you lived and worked there at the same job?

Like I mentioned in the beginning you have a choice where you work, so if your unhappy your company went union and your side lost, then I would suggest taking work with a company that is not union, I am sure if your well qualified they will love to have you.

My experience with shops organizing has been that normally something is wrong making the employees look for reperesentation. Either pay, work shifts, extensive favoritisim, lack of support for continuing education, lack of recourse for a bad boss just to name a few. There is always a catalyst.

[elgusano]

My agreement is between me and my employer, not Tony Soprano.

When I lived in Right-to-Work states, I made much more in terms of inflation adjusted dollars than I do here in Alaska. I choose to live here because I love it here, and I want to help repair the injustices that union thuggery have brought about here in my home.

If you look at the economies of the 50 states, 12 of the top 13 states economically (Colorado is the exception, and Right-to-Work is on their legislative agenda right now) are all Right-to-Work states. 19 of the bottom 20 (Nebraska is the exception) are all forced unionism states.

Yep. Unionism is great.

If you're a union leader or a democrat.

For everyone else, unions are bloodsucking leeches.

If they still taught basic economics in school, unions would have almost zero support.

Thankfully, national Right-to-Work legislation is in the works, which will force Alaska to support the rights of all its citizens, and not just the handful represented by union thugs.

[elgusano]

Originally Posted by Arcticthaw

Like any other vote all it takes is 50% plus 1 to win or loose depending on your view point. The last time I experienced a job trying to organize, the FEDs, National Labor Relations Board came in not the State of Alaska.

The Feds have oversight, but it's Alaska that permits forced union slavery. The NLRB is only there to make sure that it's honest. The unions have more violations of the law (by degrees) than companies do, both in organizing and in operating. The Teamsters alone had as many criminal violations as all industries did last year.

Originally Posted by Arcticthaw

Seems 53% of the people in a "forced" union situation do wish to be reperesented by a union. There is power in unity. Everyone standing up saying with one voice. Keeps the owners honest with regards to pay, work rules, benefits.

47% of the people wish to be left alone. That is not unity. Unity is 100%. (It's still Marxism, but at 100% it would be united Marxism.)

This dissent helps me sell a lot of my anti-union clothing. 95% of what I sell goes to those who were forced into a union against their will, and the law prohibits discrimination if they wear the clothing. (So much so that unions will usually bend over backwards to make sure there are no allegations.)

Right-to-work states have stronger unions because every single individual in those unions wants to be there. So, if there is something wrong, then there is truly a united voice. In forced unionism, this is not true.

And benefits are not a right.

Originally Posted by Arcticthaw

Like I mentioned in the beginning you have a choice where you work, so if your unhappy your company went union and your side lost, then I would suggest taking work with a company that is not union, I am sure if your well qualified they will love to have you.

Why would I do that? I can stay where I am, make sure the union crooks don't get a penny of my money, and create dissent and unrest among those who are forced into a situation they never wanted in the first place. How? The Feds at least force the unions to exempt you on religious grounds. Soon, they will force the unions to exempt you on freedom of association grounds.

When 47% of the people opt out on religious grounds and force the unions to give their dues to charity, it weakens the unions and strengthens the honest employees' positions.

Originally Posted by Arcticthaw

My experience with shops organizing has been that normally something is wrong making the employees look for reperesentation. Either pay, work shifts, extensive favoritisim, lack of support for continuing education, lack of recourse for a bad boss just to name a few. There is always a catalyst.

My experience (I grew up in a union family) is that 95% of the union organizing has been greed, pure and simple. That's the catalyst.

It's simple economics (an example): Teamsters go on strike for more money for truck drivers, cost of shipping food goes up, grocery stores raise their prices, the McDonald's worker has to have a raise to buy groceries, McDonald's has to raise their prices to pay their employees more, carpet layers have to raise their prices to buy McDonald's, contractors have to raise their rates to pay the carpet layers, truck drivers have to pay more for their house.

No one gets ahead. In fact, the truck drivers are now paying union dues and are in a higher tax bracket, while having the same spending power they did before.

Unions benefit; everyone else suffers.

Here's a scenario. See how fair it sounds:

This morning, you go to your mailbox, and instead of learning that you’re the new $10 million winner, you receive notice that 107,840,001 of the 215,694,000 eligible voters in this country voted and decided that in order to remain a citizen, you have to become a member of the Ku Klux Klan. After digging a bit, you find that if you don't like the KKK, you can resign (although they might make you sue them to get your name removed), but you still have to pay them for “your share” of operating expenses.

They can't spend it on politicians directly, but they can spend it on PACs, and they don't ask your opinion. If you're opposed to that, you can file more forms and go through more court hassles and eventually direct your money to a charity of which they approve.

Sound absurd? Not in Alaska!

Alaska is the most beautiful place on the face of God’s Earth, and there’s nowhere I’d rather live. But, forced unionism is a cancer that needs to be removed.

[Classic Satch]

Originally Posted by elgusano

Alaska is the most beautiful place on the face of God’s Earth, and there’s nowhere I’d rather live. But, forced unionism is a cancer that needs to be removed.

Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!

[susitna-flower]

Good points, and this is the exact reason the State should NOT own directly the enterprises it does here in AK. Mat-Maid Dairy is a prime example....Union labor forced the prices so high they couldn't compete!

There is much that is broken here in AK, but much that is also good, and as long as folks have the will to cuss & discuss it's OK...

What I worry about is when the little guys get so down trodden they give up the fight.

We are in a situation right now where there really is a disconnect between government, and the reality of having a small business, OR getting a gas line built.

I just went the the KABATA board meeting this week. They approved a 1.5 Million annual budget! That was for salaries and office rental etc....

Well, they don't have to make a profit to cover these things, not like a "real business", take for example. A person wants to start a small construction company, first you have to have the skills to perform the job, so there is education, then a license. For the average JOE it is hard to save up for this, and between the license, insurance, and bond it is going to run you $6,000+ just to get started.

The day you hire the FIRST employee, you have to pay ahead of time, the Workman's Comp for the entire first year! So if one guy is making a living wage in your business of say (non union $20/hr......union $36/hr)
you have upfront costs of $12,672 to $22,809 that you have to pay the State for workman's comp. Not to mention that you have to pay the employee his wage, and matching taxes on with-holdings.....

So many people use Workman's Comp as a health insurance plan, not even caring how it has raised the premium for small businesses, that if you own a construction business the premium is as much as 30%+ of all wages paid out!

Don't get me wrong, I agree that people need a living wage, and I agree the state shouldn't pick up the bill if someone gets hurt, but what I DON'T agree with is for people to have to pay upfront, before any accident takes place! There are good safe companies that train their employees well, and never have accidents, but they still have to pay through the nose! I think much more goes into the state, than is paid out, and that people shouldn't be taking every little scrape and bump to the doctor on Workman's comp!

Either you have mandatory state run health insurance, or do it like in the old days and people take SOME responsibility for their own actions....and foot the bills themselves!

The State on the other hand, doesn't have to hire a book keeper, a personnel director, pay for mechanical help or replacement of vehicles, and certainly not fuel.....in a way that businesses do. It is all paid out of the coffers filled by the OIL COMPANIES!

So that is just one problem of the small business owner vs. state operations.

The State can run a business like the Rail Road, or Mat-Maid Dairy "in the red" for several years without going out of business. Not so with the small business that is the backbone of our job market. This forces people to raise prices, and pretty soon, the people who are jumping through all the hoops price themselves right out of work, because there is always some UNLICENSED guy down the road who everyone wants to hire, because his prices are lower! So then you ask yourself, do I want to put the $$$ into STATE oversight, or let them own everything and give us our little paychecks!

One other problem I see right now is that the OIL COMPANIES have "paid our taxes", now so long here in AK that they feel they own us!

Well folks, if we don't like it, we should take Alaska back, and start paying taxes again ourselves! It is plain and simple, the guy that pays the bills is the guy in charge! Didn't your Dad tell you that when you were a little kid!

Same goes now, and the only thing we can do is flail our little arms and make a big fuss....When we step up to the plate and reach into our pockets again to pay the bills, THEN we can hold our heads up high and say, NO you aren't going to build and own the GAS line, and reap all those dollars on tariffs, like you did on the TAPs line! ALASKANS are going to build the line from the North Slope, to Valdez, with our money, and we are going to put that money in OUR pockets, and have ample gas to heat our homes, and grow industry that will provide jobs here in Alaska to pay our bills.

I am not saying that the Alaskan government should pay the bill, and run the whole show, that would be against what I originally was trying to point out. I AM saying the PFD money can be used to secure financing, a trust set up LIKE the PFD board, and the money NOT available for unlimited raiding by the Legislature.....Trans Canada could be hired to build the line, and it could be done sooner than any cross Canada line!

When the line is in operation then, it would bring many more dollars into Alaska than if we just sell the gas! Why do you think the oil companies are fighting so hard to build the Denali Project! Transportation of the gas is where the true wealth is created!.....ALASKA, WAKE UP!!!