Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Opportunity.
ZERO transplant auto plants in closed shop states. Not a coincidence.
You will find that the employees of those plants are on "scale" with union employees in the unionized plants. What is missing is the bonus system that has been added to the collective bargaing agreements.
The transplant auto plants are there because the large Corps. are playing state and local govts. against each other to get the most tax monies out of them. I believe some would call that welfare.
I'm in favor for pro-choice in employment. A person should not be forced to join a union or excluded from a job because he is not related to a union member inorder to get hired. It would be better to disolve all unions and let everyone use their own merits to gain and keep employment.
People get killed when you bring ideology into the real world. So if you are an elec lineman and someone who chooses not to join the brotherhood of elec workers so does not receive the proper training, would you want to put your life in their hands?
I'm glad I live in a state where this "right to work" bs will never pass.
Boss, Toyota paid super bonuses which resulted in higher total pay than the D3 several years. So you are correct; transplants' employees usually got better bonuses. Course they deserved them, as their employers were in the black. Didn't need a DC bailout to save them.
Would you be OK with a person working in a union shop without joining or paying dues to the union if that meant he got paid less and had worse benefits than the other workers around him?
No one is forced to become a member of a labor union. If you don't want anything to do with a labor union, then don't be so dumb as to try to join a unionized workplace.
You can't get a job with one of the "big 3" without joining the UAW.
"Originally Posted by stillkit Would you be OK with a person working in a union shop without joining or paying dues to the union if that meant he got paid less and had worse benefits than the other workers around him?"
BTW, we should all be ok with the non union employee making MORE or LESS. It should be up to the company. If they wish to give the non-union group MORE holidays and vacation, they should be able to also. The company is the employer, and the reason there are jobs for anyone. Not the steward.
In my experience, if the majority of employees voted to be represented by a union, it was because company execs were being unfair to its workers. So if the company has needlessly taken away so many employee benefits and cut wages to the point where the majority of employees have decided to fight back and get the shop unionized, why should they want their union weakened by a right-to-work law?
There's nothing to "justify". There was a mine with safety violations. Nobody fixed them. People died. It's a tragedy. It has zip to do with unions.
Did you miss the part where multiple complaints were made to management about those violations and all ignored? Or how about when one supervisor took it on himself to shut down dangerous sections, he was told to open them back up or else he'd be fired? You really think that would have passed if there had been a union presence to fight management?
Safety violations like that are exactly what unions fight against. They're the reason that management gets forced to respect the LIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES and not be profit-whores. How are you not able to put those two things together?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.