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.
They didn't have a vote at Ford Motor. They went to Henry, he agreed to let a union in. Though he did resist at first.
All I was saying is that if a union is voted in and the employer doesn't want it then we can't call that free market. As the employer is forced by law to accept a contract he doesn't want and should be illegal as employers have rights too.
If he agrees to let a union in then the agreement is mutually agreed to and should be perfectly legal.
Henry agreed to nothing of the kind! He was lectured by his friends Thomas Edison and Goodyear after his goons beat the crap out of some of his employees. He was eventually "embarrassed" into accepting a Union.
Unions arrive in a workplace by the exercise of democracy, you know, that thing where the majority decide. The management have every right to facilitate managerial rights within every single collective agreement and those rights are stipulated quite clearly within the document.
Clauses worded thusly "provided the worker has equal skill and ability" to define who is eligible for a job when seniority rules are present are typical of those managerial rights being exercised in the crafting of any collective agreement.
Companies always insist on the inclusion of any number of protections be made available to them within the typical collective agreement. My experience has been; most companies choose not to use them until a crisis arises through negligence on their part.
It 's not a one-sided street simply because a shop is unionized. Labor laws have been developed over many decades. All of those laws were open to debate by all parties in every instance.
Well, if we are deciding to work with basic economics, we need to establish that the money that GM pockets will go into expanding the company, making more jobs, etc,. OR they could lower the price and sell more, equilibrium right?
So, you're saying less corporate jets, huge windfall retirement packages for management executives, and more to research & development would benefit a company that my union earned tax dollars bailed out at a loss will improve?
One world economy, one world company requires One World Union. We need the International Workers of the World more than ever. Without the ONE BIG UNION we will be forever enslaved to the owners and managers that control us but never themselves. Just ask yourself this question.
Do the workers and soldiers of the world want WAR. Hell no!
Do the owners and managers that never fight want WAR. Hell yes! War is wealth and profit to these theives.
We need a real IWW so the owners and managers can fight their own damn wars. We will sit back, watch and kill the winners so we can get on with making the world work for everyone.
Your labor is worth the same as mine. So if mine is worth $7.00 so is yours. Having a union is good. I don't have to negotiate with the bosses. That is what I pay them to do for me. And I doubt you are getting a better deal standing by your lonesome. The boss is laughing at you. He is paying me. Well the taxpayers are anyway.
My labor is valued at about $150,000 annually.
The boss can laugh all he wants....I fully accept and agree with my compensation plan.
I don't expect more than I'm worth, or less.
When I agree to a compensation plan, I don't agree to it and then beatch and whine about it afterwards.
If my boss were to change the deal, I have the freedom and ability to go elsewhere and make a new deal.
I don't need some fat cat union boss to negotiate for me.
Unions protect and reward longevity more than they reward performance.
My post challenged the assertion that union members couldn't be fired. Whether union rewards longevity more than they reward performance is a irrelevant. The fact is one can fire a union member for cause.
Yeah, and that was also the period of time when millions of American workers faced unsafe workplaces, scores of coal miners for example were killed every year. Wages were still low; a wage increase from 15 cents an hour to 20 cents looks impressive but it's still a low wage.
The period of time from 1860 to 1890 is at the very end of the industrial revolution, so there are historic forces at play there. I don't know about the other time period, but I don't see what happened 100 years ago as that relevant for today's vastly different labor market.
Yes you do.
You use what happened 100 years ago to justify the need for unions.
You choose to ignore the good stuff that happened 100 ago because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas.
And by the way, work was more dangerous then because technology was not as advanced. It had nothing to do with lack of unions.
Look at migration patterns. Throughout world history workers move from unionized areas to non-unionized areas. The only exception was prople from the South going to Detroit in the 40s and 50s. But if they had had conditioning businesses would've opened down south and people wouldn't have left.
If unions were so successful it would be the other way around. History would show non-union workers moving to union areas.
It wasn't a tangent at all. You are saying that if the workers organize and vote for a union that is contrary to a "free market economy".
I'm saying regardless of whether a manufacturer is 'burdened' with a "closed shop" he still has recourse to sell his goods for whatever price that makes him a profit.
You are not thinking clearly here as the world now moves to an open world free trade market. Your wages along with everyone else's will of necessity reduce down to the lowest common denominator. Your skill, your work ethic, your loyalty ALL WORTHLESS to the new age employer. He'll use the cheapest resources he can find and you my friend are merely an overpaid resource when he finds a cheaper labor pool in some chit-hole of a country just coming of age.
Pick your poison; Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, ......etc., Your one hope for the continuation of any kind of lifestyle close to what you've enjoyed for your lifetime is those other countries ALL become unionized, otherwise how would you like your day's pay? With soy sauce or without.
You totally missed my point.
If a workforce wants to unionize and the employer is okay with it then so be it. More power to them.
When a union organizes against the wishes of the employer then it violates the rights of the employer and should be illegal.
That was my only point.
Last edited by OhioRules; 05-01-2013 at 06:48 AM..
Without unions you have situations like Bangladesh in which safety standards for garment workers are ignored, and in which last week one of the factory buildings collapsed killing over 400 garment workers.
Businesses have one goal: profits. They are going to pay workers the least possible, and without unions or a minimum wage, we would all be slave labor.
Nobody condones neglect.
Once again, DUH! Of course a business has a profit motive.
Once again, I feel sorry for people who feel that their labor is so worthless, that it is only worth minimum wage.
Unions arrive in a workplace by the exercise of democracy, you know, that thing where the majority decide. The management have every right to facilitate managerial rights within every single collective agreement and those rights are stipulated quite clearly within the document.
LOLs. It amazes how people are so naive to think unions were formed out of some benevelant idea to help workers. What a bunch of stupid mother ****ers.
Read "Regulating the Poor" by Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward (Obama supporters)
Unions were given power by corporations and government. Unions didn't "win" anything. Corporations didn't give up anything. Corporations and government got together and allowed unions to form. And it benefited the corporations and government more than the workers. People don't give up power willingly. Never have, never will. Why do people think politicians and CEOs made an exception this time? They coulda just outlawed unions if they didn't want them. Read the book. You all been duped. lols.
And unions were started in this country to keep blacks and Asians from taking "white" jobs (with few exceptions). Private sector unions were probably the most racist institution around. Most of 'em are still almost exclusively white. Hell, employers were more than willing to hire blacks, before the unions put a stop to it. We wouldn't needed civil rights laws in the workplace if unions were never around.
And then how many union bosses have been locked up or murdered because of dealings with the Mafia?
lols. Hell of an organization to be proud of with the racist mafia types running things.
Last edited by OhioRules; 05-01-2013 at 06:50 AM..
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.
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.
