[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by Retiredcoach

What a bunch of baloney!! You are equating the entire downturn of the US auto industry with the collective bargaining process. The building of foreign auto plants in the south has as much to do with free land, monumental government subsidies, total tax forgiveness, relaxed pollution standards and political backstabbing as with the potential for lower labor costs..

So this had nothing to do with it?

Why Detroit Can't Compete - Forbes.com



It's well-known that the Big 3 made their largest profit-per vehicle on gas-guzzling SUVs, and that compact cars actually lost money in many cases. When you have $1-2 K more in expenses per worker than the competition, it obviously incentivizes you to sell the vehicle with the most profit, not the one that people are trending towards. That's why Honda and Toyota were eating GM's lunch when it came to the compact sedan race over the past decade.

[Jiggsy44]

Now is the time, to come together and organize as a middle class and demand that right to work and laws like this be abolished. We as middle class workers do have a say, and now is the time to make those capitalist listen.

[TN Gal now]

this is an old thread, someone else brought it back and I'm adding my 2 cents. And let's just assume here that my comments are referencing an abundance of good and responsible employees.

Unions would absolutely NOT be needed if employers treated employees well. However, those were not the situations that brought about the need for unions. All you have to do is look at how coal miners, textile workers, truck drivers and many others were treated to recognize the need for unions OR government intervention. It appears that as business grows into BIG business, the greed for financial gain grows exponentially - at the cost of the employees, both for safey issues and financially. It is evident that many businesses, whether large or small, cannot operate with a basic premise of fairness and kindness to employees. How someone can justify anyone building massive wealth on the backs of min wage workers who can't afford health insurance, rent, or milk - and then say that's how it works in a capitalistic society...well, that's so appalling to me I'm not sure how to answer that. It's just wrong and those people need someone to help speak for them. Otherwise, we're headed for a society of "royalty and serfs."

I've never been a union member. I've worked at places where I felt that I was a valued employee and other places where employees have been treated badly. I've always been in the fortunate position to find another job and leave if I wasn't happy. However, fortunate position are the two key words. While I am intelligent and tallented enough to work in various fields, there are many who aren't. They are trapped in their own cycle, both from their absolute inability to raise their IQ and/or their fear of leaving a less than desirable employer. There are MANY employers who feed on these people. And that is why there was and is a need for unions for SOME big businesses - and the employees wil regulate which ones need the union. Happy employees do not organize unions. Unions and/or government regulations are necessary to watch over the "little guy" and monitor the greed of the giant businesses.

And a correction to a previous post. Unions were not responsible for creating the federal overtime wage law. I attended a state tax seminar where it was explained that the overtime wage law - which is a federal law - was enacted in 1937, during the big depression. It was legislated because businesses were working employess 60, 70, and 80+ hours each week which prevented others the opportunity to work. One worker could keep as many as 2 or 3 others from having a job. Thus, the 40 hour work week was born and overtime was instituted to penalize an employer, NOT designed to benefit the employee. In other words, it was enacted to help create jobs by penalizing an employer financially so that they would hire additional employees rather than pay overtime. The law remains in place as incentive to hire more employees rather than pay overtime.

Now, lest you think the employer hasn't found a way around this law, enter the "exempt" employee. I cannot begin to tell you how many employers I've worked for who thought that they could make someone a "manager," put them on a salary (which, by the way, is juuuuuust enough over a reasonable hourly wage for the job/area to be attractive) then they proceed to work that employee 60, 70, even 80+ hours per week, which means they're often working for less than $4 or $5/hr. Most of those "exempt" employees don't even begin to meet the federal criteria - don't have the ability to hire/fire, don't make critical financial decisions, etc. The employer will often dock hours for leaving early/arriving late, emergencies/dr visits, etc, not allow payment for sick days (even though there is no policy) i.e. treat the employee like an hourly worker - and so much more - and 99.9% of employees refuse to confront the employer even if they KNEW the law and realized they were being "abused." Why? Because they fear reprisal from their employer and rightly so. As noted throughout this thread, in an "at willl state" an employer can fire for ANY reason and pointing out that the employer is breaking a law, more likely than not, would probably qualify for dismissal (unjust reasons are often cloaked in "other" reasons.) All they have to do is to tell the employee that "there are a ton of people who would be happy to have your job," the employee shuts up, and goes back to being abused.

Why does the employee endure? Well, even in a good economy a "salaried" job may be more difficult to replace, they are financially bound, and most of all they're scared. Why does the employer do this? Well, mostly because it can. That, combined with the fact that it's more profitable and, for the employer, profit is more important than humanity to their employees.

And that's why in certain situations we need unions. Other than that, we just need moral and ethical responsibility by employers.

[trouble64]

20hr is nothing today. if you were a worker back in the 80s and made 10hr, That today would be close to 28hr, but, it seems people and corp. companies are still stuck in a mind set that 10hr is OK.
So today you work more, for less. (thank you wall street and Corp. Bankers)
As far as rights if you "REALLY" have skills you have the Right to go work where ever you want. every being makes it's own destiny. It's up to you and only you.

as far as working conditions,, educate yourself on LAWS and policies not rights. if you question Harassment,equality and safe environment and the employer dosen't play by the rules, then seek out legal options and move on. P.S. and always log/diary (things you don't agree with)even it if means nothing now it may in the future. PEACE

[$musicman$]

Right to work state..very good thing.

Those states are doing better than the rest in this economy.

[theoldnorthstate]

right to work state
agree
good thing

[Sweetbottoms]

Originally Posted by Jiggsy44

Now is the time, to come together and organize as a middle class and demand that right to work and laws like this be abolished. We as middle class workers do have a say, and now is the time to make those capitalist listen.

Well because its a right to work state my husband (in Law Enforcement) does not get any holiday pay, for ANY holiday or any bonus. Never has. Their reason? Crime doesn't take a holiday so why should we pay you for one... Not thrilled about that. Up north he got double pay on holidays .

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by theoldnorthstate

right to work state
agree
good thing

Kinda depends what you are doing for work and how a boss/company treats his/its employees. some companies give their employees a fair wage and fair benefits and working conditions and treats its employees with respect, other companies treat their employees like slaves and give them nothing but the bare minimum of everything with the logic of "You're lucky to have this job" And the usual response to the command jump better be how high? on the way up or your services will be no longer required.
Right to work state? its a double edge sword..

[doug1980]

I've worked in many States and personally I see no difference, no matter what it is. I was a Teamster at my last job and didn't see any difference except I had to pay dues out of my check. Did I get paid more, well yes, but it was in Alaska where it is twice as expensive than anywhere else I have ever lived. I can tell you I didn't make twice of what I had in other States so it wasn't really great. Companies have the right to pay you what they want, how they want and can fire you if they want anywhere you go.

[Mpena1973]

Well, i think its unfair, i had just started working at BSA and because my spanish is not perfect they couldn't as i was told keep me and this after only 2 weeks. I speak spanish and it may not be perfect but I was raised here in the USA in NY, my parents are Puerto Rican and Colombian and because my spanish is Americanized they couldn't keep me. 1st of all our primary language in the USA is English so now I HAVE to be BILINGUAL to obtain a job. By the way I live in south Florida where immigrants migrate to. Why cant they learn english to obtain jobs instead of us having to learn spanish or creole to have to communicate with them?